AD/PA-44/19 Amdt 1 - Control Wheel Attachment

The Directive is built around three mechanical safety concepts: thread engagement of the control wheel attachment screw, locking performance of the associated nut plate, and the use of an additional physical retention device, the retainer clip (PN 104687‑002). The immediate mechanical risk identified in the background section is that loss of screw retention can permit the control wheel to spin on the control column, which abolishes positive control inputs to the ailerons and elevators; the AD references an investigation of a crash of a Model PA‑28‑181 where the left control wheel single attachment screw had unscrewed from its nut plate, with the screw being too short and the nut plate lacking locking characteristics. The Directive therefore seeks to (a) verify that thread length engagement is sufficient, (b) verify that the nut plate provides adequate locking resistance, and (c) add a retainer clip to reduce the probability of screw loss even if the other features degrade.

Operationally, the Directive divides aircraft into two applicability groups defined by serial number ranges. Group A aircraft are the primary focus for the immediate inspection/repair sequence (Requirement 1), but both Group A and B are subject to the retainer clip installation (Requirement 2). The wording of Requirement 1 links compliance to Part I of New Piper SB No. 1139A dated 9 April 2004, and Requirement 2 to Part II of the same SB. The Directive also contains an exception for Group A aircraft that "are already modified in accordance with the New Piper Aircraft Service Bulletin (SB) No. 1139, dated 28 August 2003"; those aircraft are excluded from the Part I inspection/repair requirement, but not from the Part II retainer clip installation requirement which applies to both groups.

The instrument sets objective pass/fail criteria for the inspections. For thread engagement, the Directive specifies a quantitative minimum: "minimum one thread showing past the end of the nut plate", and instructs replacement of the screw before further flight if insufficient engagement is found. For nut plate locking characteristics, the Directive gives an operational test: if the screw "can be fully inserted into the nut plate by hand (one thread showing past end of nut), then replacement of the nut plate is required before further flight". After replacement or confirmation, reassembly must include use of Loctite thread‑locking compound on the attachment screw. The retainer clip is mandated by part number where Part II of the SB prescribes its fitment.

The AD is an amendment (Amdt 1) that corrects a cross‑reference to the service bulletin date; the document explicitly states that Amendment 1 was issued because a corrected FAA AD corrected parts of the text, and the only correction required in this Directive was to change a reference to Part I of the SB to the SB No. 1139A dated 9 April 2004. The Directive also cross‑references the related FAA AD 2004‑14‑12 Amdt 39‑13721, signalling coordination or parallel action between CASA and the FAA on this safety issue.

The Directive applies to owners, operators, maintenance organisations, and pilots responsible for the airworthiness of Piper PA‑44‑180 Seminole aircraft falling within the specified serial number ranges. The applicability block lists two groups by serial number. Group A comprises PA‑44‑180 Seminole serial numbers 4496020 through 4496173, and 4496175. Group B comprises PA‑44‑180 Seminole serial numbers 4496174 through 4496176, and 4496180. Those specific serial ranges determine whether an aircraft must undergo the Part I inspections and possible replacements and whether it must receive the retainer clip. The Directive explicitly exempts from the Part I requirement any Group A aircraft that are "already modified in accordance with the New Piper Aircraft Service Bulletin (SB) No. 1139, dated 28 August 2003." Operators therefore must check maintenance records, modifications, and SB compliance history to determine whether that pre‑existing modification was done; the exemption is internal to Group A only and does not extend to retainer clip installation.

Maintenance organisations and certified mechanics are the practical implementers of the inspections, replacements and installations. The AD ties the required methods to Parts I and II of SB No. 1139A dated 9 April 2004, so whoever performs the work must have access to that SB and follow its procedures. The requirement to use a Loctite thread‑locking compound when installing the attachment screw is specific and dictates a particular material treatment in reassembly; the retainer clip is specified by part number (104687‑002), so parts procurement and fitment responsibility falls on whoever carries out the work.

Pilots and flight operators are affected operationally because the Directive sets "before further flight" requirements for corrective replacements when inspections fail. For example, if an inspection shows insufficient thread engagement or inadequate nut plate locking, the screw or nut plate must be replaced before the next flight can occur. Timelines are set in hours time in service counted from 11 August 2004: Requirement 1 actions are to be completed within 25 hours TIS and Requirement 2 within 100 hours TIS. Those compliance windows impose operational scheduling constraints, potentially affecting aircraft availability. The Directive is asserted by CASA and signed by a Delegate, David Punshon, which places decision‑making about regulatory force with that authority; the AD is effective as of 17 March 2005 as stated in the instrument.

The Directive imposes concrete duties on the relevant aircraft operators and maintenance providers. Key duties are:

• Determine applicability: ascertain by serial number whether an aircraft is in Group A or Group B as listed in the applicability section. For Group A, also determine whether the aircraft "are already modified in accordance with the New Piper Aircraft Service Bulletin (SB) No. 1139, dated 28 August 2003"; if so, the Part I requirement is excepted for that aircraft.

• Perform Part I actions for Group A (except those already modified as above) in accordance with SB No. 1139A dated 9 April 2004. Part I mandates inspection of the control wheel attachment screw for proper thread engagement (with an explicit minimum of one thread showing past the end of the nut plate), replacement of the screw before further flight if insufficient engagement is found, inspection of the nut plate locking characteristics and replacement of the nut plate before further flight if the screw can be fully inserted by hand (one thread showing past end of nut), and reassembly using Loctite thread‑locking compound on the attachment screw.

• Perform Part II actions for both Group A and Group B: install retainer clip PN 104687‑002 in accordance with Part II of SB No. 1139A dated 9 April 2004.

• Meet the prescribed compliance windows: Requirement 1 within 25 hours time in service after 11 August 2004; Requirement 2 within 100 hours time in service after 11 August 2004. Where the AD specifies replacement "before further flight" that creates an immediate non‑flight condition until the required replacement is accomplished.

What the Directive does not state as explicit rights or remedies: the text does not set out compensation schemes, reimbursement for parts or labour, appeals mechanisms, or civil/criminal penalties. It also does not specify record‑keeping procedures, though the actions required are tied to maintenance work and the SBs that provide procedural detail. The Directive does, however, make a discrete exception to the Part I duty for those Group A aircraft already modified in accordance with the earlier SB No. 1139 dated 28 August 2003, thereby recognising prior compliance as satisfying that component of the AD for those aircraft. Operators therefore have the practical right (based on the Directive text) to rely on evidence of prior SB compliance to avoid redundant inspections mandated by Part I.

The instrument assigns method and workmanship: compliance must be "in accordance with Part I" and "in accordance with Part II" of SB No. 1139A dated 9 April 2004. That means the Directive delegates method choice to the referenced service bulletin rather than prescribing step‑by‑step procedures in the AD text itself. The Directive also prescribes a specific material product (Loctite thread‑locking compound) and an explicit part number for the retainer clip, which constrains choices for parts and materials to those specified in the SB and AD.

Finally, the Directive is issued by CASA and signed by a named Delegate, David Punshon (document dated 4 February 2005), and it takes effect on 17 March 2005. The AD references and aligns with a related FAA AD (FAA AD 2004‑14‑12 Amdt 39‑13721), so the regulatory duty is part of a cross‑jurisdictional airworthiness response to the identified mechanical failure mode.

The Directive text itself sets out mandatory maintenance and corrective actions and establishes time‑in‑service compliance windows, but it does not specify monetary penalties, civil sanctions, or criminal offences within the text provided. Enforcement mechanics implied by the instrument are administrative: the AD imposes requirements "before further flight" when inspections reveal deficient conditions and prescribes completion within fixed TIS windows. The Directive is an official instrument issued by CASA (signed by a Delegate, David Punshon) and given an effective date (17 March 2005), which places it within CASA's regulatory authority to issue airworthiness directives. The instrument also refers to a related FAA AD, which indicates coordination of airworthiness mandates across regulatory jurisdictions.

Operationally, the Directive creates an airworthiness compliance obligation that directly affects an aircraft's ability to be lawfully flown in a safe condition: where a required replacement is mandated "before further flight" an aircraft with that defect cannot be operated lawfully and safely until the replacement is completed. This is an operational enforcement mechanism present in the Directive text: the phrase "replace the screw before further flight" and "replacement of the nut plate is required before further flight" functionally grounds an immediate operational prohibition on flying until corrective measures are taken.

The AD does not describe the process for CASA inspection, audit, or the administrative enforcement steps that CASA might take for non‑compliance. It also does not include explicit references to penalties (fines, grounding directives beyond the AD itself, licence action) or the dispute/appeal mechanisms regarding CASA’s AD decisions. The presence of a signed Delegate and an effective date shows the formal issuance chain but does not itself itemise enforcement sanctions. Therefore, while non‑compliance will leave an aircraft in breach of the Directive and, operationally, unfit to be flown because of the "before further flight" requirements, the instrument as provided is silent on the specific enforcement procedures and penalty consequences that might follow from broader aviation safety legislation or CASA enforcement policy.

The Directive does impose a procedural enforcement expectation by tying the work to specific service bulletin parts and by giving a measured compliance window in hours TIS after 11 August 2004 (25 and 100 hours respectively). The prescriptive nature of these deadlines provides CASA a clear compliance standard: aircraft owners/operators either will have complied within those windows or will not, and that binary standing is a natural administrative basis for follow‑up by CASA under its general regulatory powers, even though those broader enforcement mechanisms are not described within this AD text.

Within the text of the Directive, cross‑references to other regulatory and technical instruments are explicit and central. The AD references New Piper Aircraft Service Bulletin No. 1139A dated 9 April 2004 as the required procedural standard for both Part I (inspection, replacement and reassembly) and Part II (installation of retainer clip) actions. It also refers to an earlier New Piper SB No. 1139 dated 28 August 2003 for the narrow exemption of Group A aircraft that have already been modified in accordance with that earlier SB. These references mean compliance with the AD is operationally accomplished by performing the actions specified in those service bulletins; the AD thus delegates method and many implementation details to the SBs.

The AD explicitly notes the related FAA AD 2004‑14‑12 Amdt 39‑13721, and Amendment 1 was issued in response to the issue of a corrected copy of that FAA AD, which corrected portions of the text. This indicates regulatory coordination: CASA’s Directive aligns with an FAA airworthiness action concerning essentially the same mechanical risk. Practically, operators that also fly in, register in, or interact with the US regulatory sphere will see the same engineering fixes reflected in both regulatory instruments. This cross‑reference demonstrates that the CASA AD does not stand in isolation but sits alongside the FAA AD as part of an international airworthiness response to the identified mechanical failure.

The Directive does not itself quote or amend broad legislative acts or CASA’s enabling statutes. It is an administrative regulatory instrument that implements airworthiness requirements through specification of maintenance and modification actions; therefore, its legal force and enforcement mechanisms would be exercised through CASA’s general airworthiness powers and safety enforcement frameworks rather than by the AD text creating separate statutory offences. The instrument does not specify or alter civil aviation law provisions, penalty scales, or administrative procedure; it remains a focused compliance requirement that operates within the broader legal architecture governing airworthiness.

The AD’s specification of product and part numbers (Loctite thread‑locking compound and retainer clip PN 104687‑002) interacts with procurement and maintenance practice: compliance will require sourcing those specified items and carrying out work in accordance with the SB. The AD contains an exemption based on prior compliance with a specific SB (SB No. 1139 dated 28 August 2003), so it directly interacts with operators' maintenance history and record evidence of SB implementation. That interaction means that prior modifications performed under a previous SB may legally satisfy parts of the current AD, reducing duplicative work, provided the documented prior modification aligns with the AD’s exemption language.

Nothing in the AD text addresses interaction with contractual obligations between operators and third‑party maintenance organisations, insurance policy terms, or charter regulations; the Directive does not specify allocation of costs for the mandated actions. It limits its cross‑instrument interaction to the service bulletins and the related FAA AD referenced in the text.

This document is an amendment to a previously issued Airworthiness Directive concerning the Piper PA‑44 Seminole control wheel attachment. The header identifies the instrument as "AD/PA‑44/19 Amdt 1" and the effective date for the amendment is stated as 17 March 2005. The instrument is dated 4 February 2005 and signed by David Punshon, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. The Background paragraph explains the purpose of Amendment 1: it was issued in response to the release of a corrected FAA AD (FAA AD 2004‑14‑12 Amdt 39‑13721) and to align certain parts of the Directive text with that corrected FAA AD. The Background further states: "The only part requiring correction of this Directive was Requirement 1. text, 'Part I of SB No. 1139 dated 9 April 2004' which was changed to 'Part I of SB No. 1139A dated 9 April 2004'."

The AD as amended includes a note that the corrected FAA AD is relevant, and it explicitly identifies both SB No. 1139 dated 28 August 2003 and SB No. 1139A dated 9 April 2004 as relevant service documents. The amendment therefore accomplishes a precise editorial correction: it updates the reference to the service bulletin part used to effect the Part I requirement to the "A" variant of the SB and the specific date 9 April 2004. The amendment text states that the compliance times stated in the AD remain unchanged by the amendment issue, i.e., the compliance windows of 25 hours TIS and 100 hours TIS measured from 11 August 2004 are unchanged.

The amendment also re‑prints the applicability grouping and the two explicit requirements, linking each to the relevant Part of SB No. 1139A. The instrument does not list any prior amendment numbers beyond identifying itself as Amendment 1. It also does not specify any subsequent amendments or revocations. No other textual changes are described in the Background; the amendment appears to be narrowly tailored to correct the SB reference and thereby to ensure operators refer to the correct service bulletin revision for procedural specifics.

In short, the amendment history contained in the document is limited and explicit: this instrument is AD/PA‑44/19 Amendment 1, effective 17 March 2005, issued to update an internal reference to New Piper SB No. 1139A dated 9 April 2004 following a corrected FAA AD, and it leaves originally stated compliance times unchanged.

The document contains no record of litigation, adversarial proceedings, or judicial interpretation. The AD’s Background recounts an investigative finding about a crash of a Model PA‑28‑181 and the mechanical causes discovered in that investigation, but the AD text confines itself to the technical corrective measures and the amendment rationale; it does not reference any court proceedings, orders, or legal disputes arising from the subject matter. The instrument records administrative issuance by CASA (signed by a Delegate) and an effective date, but it does not document any challenges to the AD, appeals by affected parties, or judicial review outcomes.

Given the content presented, there is no litigation history to summarise or cite. The absence of litigation references in the AD is itself the sole observation the source supports regarding litigation: none is mentioned or recorded in this instrument. Users seeking information about any litigation connected to this AD or to the underlying crash investigation would need to consult external judicial or administrative records; such searches and results do not appear in the provided AD text.

Because the Directive cross‑references a related FAA AD and an accident investigation, there may be administrative records, accident reports, or enforcement actions outside this AD, but nothing of that nature is included here. The AD content is confined to the technical directive and its immediate amendment, and so the litigation history section of this document is empty insofar as the source text is concerned.

Several practical and interpretive pitfalls arise directly from the Directive text that owners, maintenance personnel and operators should note.

1. Serial‑number specificity and group placement. The applicability is strictly by serial number. Group A covers 4496020 through 4496173 and 4496175; Group B covers 4496174 through 4496176 and 4496180. The list is not a single continuous block and includes an interleaving of serials (for example 4496174 is in Group B whereas 4496175 is in Group A). Operators must confirm exact airframe serial numbers against the AD listing; errors in grouping could lead to incorrect determination of whether Part I inspection/repair is required or whether the SB No. 1139 dated 28 August 2003 exemption applies.

2. Narrow exemption language. For Group A, the Part I requirement is excepted only where an aircraft "are already modified in accordance with the New Piper Aircraft Service Bulletin (SB) No. 1139, dated 28 August 2003." That exemption is narrow: it is not a general “if previously inspected” clause but a specific prior modification performed per that SB and date. Records must specifically confirm performance to that SB; mere similarity of prior work may not suffice. The AD does not define evidence standards for proving prior compliance, so operators should retain documentary evidence showing SB No. 1139 compliance to rely on the exemption.

3. Apparent measurement ambiguity. The AD uses the phrase "minimum one thread showing past the end of the nut plate" as the acceptance criterion for proper thread engagement (Requirement 1(a)) but then instructs in Requirement 1(b) that if "the screw can be fully inserted into the nut plate by hand (one thread showing past end of nut), then replacement of the nut plate is required." The juxtaposition of "minimum one thread showing" as acceptable engagement and "one thread showing" described in a hand‑insertion test for failure could cause confusion about tolerances and test technique. The second test adds the operational qualifier "by hand", which suggests a subjective force threshold; the first does not include that qualifier. Maintenance personnel must follow the detailed actions and acceptance criteria in Part I of SB No. 1139A to resolve that apparent ambiguity; the AD text itself leaves interpretation to the referenced service bulletin methods.

4. "Before further flight" operational effect. Where inspections reveal insufficient engagement or inadequately locking nut plate, the Directive requires replacement "before further flight". That is an immediate operational constraint and means that aircraft found defective in those respects must be grounded until repair. This has scheduling and commercial implications. The AD couples this with the TIS compliance windows, but the "before further flight" language can create an out‑of‑cycle immediate maintenance requirement if a defect is found.

5. Reference to service bulletin variants. The Amendment corrects the Part I reference to SB No. 1139A dated 9 April 2004. Maintenance organisations must ensure they use the correct SB revision (1139A, 9 April 2004) for Part I work and Part II as specified, and bear in mind that an older SB No. 1139 dated 28 August 2003 is relevant only for the narrow exemption. Using the wrong SB revision could mean failing to meet the AD's mandated procedure.

6. Parts and materials specificity. The AD mandates installation of a retainer clip by part number (104687‑002) and specifies use of Loctite thread‑locking compound on the attachment screw during reassembly. Maintenance shops must source the correct retainer clip PN and a suitable Loctite product consistent with the SB instructions; substitution without reference to the SB or FAA/CASA approvals may not satisfy the AD.

7. Compliance timing is counted from a fixed calendar reference. The compliance times for the two requirements are stated as measured from 11 August 2004: 25 hours TIS for Requirement 1 and 100 hours TIS for Requirement 2. Operators should count hours time in service relative to that date to determine whether their aircraft have met or have yet to meet the deadlines, as the AD explicitly notes the compliance times remain unchanged by the Amendment.

8. Dependency on SB procedures. The AD delegates procedural detail to SB No. 1139A Parts I and II. The AD text does not reproduce procedural steps beyond inspection criteria and material/part calls; maintenance providers must obtain and follow SB No. 1139A to ensure the work is done as CASA intended.

These are not speculative risks; each is drawn from the AD wording. The net effect is that precise administrative and maintenance record checks, strict adherence to the specified SB revision, and careful execution of the quantitative thread engagement and hand‑insertion tests are essential to avoid misapplication of the Directive.

Follow these stepwise actions in the order and within the time frames specified by the Directive, using the referenced service bulletin parts as the procedural standard.

1. Verify applicability. Confirm the aircraft serial number against the applicability list in the AD. Determine whether the aircraft is in Group A or Group B:

   • Group A: PA‑44‑180 Seminole serial numbers 4496020 through 4496173, and 4496175.
   • Group B: PA‑44‑180 Seminole serial numbers 4496174 through 4496176, and 4496180.

2. Check for prior modification. For any aircraft in Group A, check maintenance records for a documented modification "in accordance with the New Piper Aircraft Service Bulletin (SB) No. 1139, dated 28 August 2003." If the aircraft has been modified under that SB and date, the Part I requirement is excepted; retain documentary evidence of that SB compliance to rely on the exemption.

3. Obtain the correct service bulletin. Acquire New Piper Aircraft Service Bulletin No. 1139A dated 9 April 2004 and follow its Part I and Part II procedures as required. The Directive explicitly requires actions "in accordance with Part I" and "in accordance with Part II" of that SB.

4. Execute Requirement 1 where applicable. For Group A aircraft not exempted by prior SB No. 1139 work:

   • Within 25 hours time in service after 11 August 2004 (per the AD compliance table), perform the Part I inspection in SB No. 1139A dated 9 April 2004.
   • Inspect the control wheel attachment screw for proper thread engagement. The AD sets a quantitative criterion: a minimum of one thread showing past the end of the nut plate. If the screw does not meet this engagement minimum, replace the screw before further flight.
   • Inspect the nut plate for locking characteristics. If the screw can be fully inserted into the nut plate by hand (with one thread showing past end of nut in that test), then replace the nut plate before further flight.
   • Reassemble the control wheel onto the control wheel shaft and install the attachment screw using a Loctite thread‑locking compound as directed in the SB.

5. Execute Requirement 2 for both groups. For both Group A and Group B aircraft:

   • Within 100 hours time in service after 11 August 2004, install retainer clip part number 104687‑002 in accordance with Part II of SB No. 1139A dated 9 April 2004.
   • Ensure the part number is matched exactly and that fitment follows the SB procedure.

6. Grounding condition and immediate corrections. If during the inspection steps any condition is found that triggers replacement "before further flight" (insufficient thread engagement or inadequate nut plate locking under the tests specified), do not operate the aircraft until the required replacement is completed. That operational prohibition is inherent in the AD text.

7. Use specified materials. When reassembling the control wheel attachment screw, install using Loctite thread‑locking compound as required by the AD text (and the SB). When installing the retainer clip, use retainer clip PN 104687‑002 as mandated by the AD.

8. Document actions. Although the AD does not specify record‑keeping procedures in its text, best practice aligned with the AD’s intent is to document the inspections, findings, parts replaced, part numbers installed, the SB edition used (SB No. 1139A dated 9 April 2004), and the dates and TIS at which the work was performed, so that compliance with the AD can be demonstrated if audited. For Group A aircraft claiming the exemption, retain documentation showing prior modification in accordance with SB No. 1139 dated 28 August 2003.

9. Coordinate with approved maintenance organisations. Ensure maintenance tasks are performed by certificated personnel in accordance with the SB and with approved maintenance procedures. The AD ties the required actions to a manufacturer SB, so adherence to SB steps and quality control checks is critical.

10. Reconcile timeline calculation. Calculate hours time in service relative to 11 August 2004 to determine whether the 25‑hour and 100‑hour windows are currently open, met, or overdue. If unsure about the calculation or its operational effect, consult CASA guidance or an authorised CASA delegate, noting the AD is effective 17 March 2005 and signed by a CASA Delegate.

Compliance is achieved by performing the inspections, replacements and installations as mandated, within the specified TIS windows, and in accordance with Parts I and II of SB No. 1139A dated 9 April 2004. The AD links immediate operational restrictions ("before further flight") to the inspection outcomes, so operational and maintenance planning must account for the possibility of immediate grounding pending corrective work.