AD/PC-12/50 - Powerplant - Torque Oil Pressure Pipe

The AD is short and focused. The core concepts it establishes are the following.

• Applicability as a gate for legal obligation. The AD applies only to Pilatus PC‑12, PC‑12/45 and PC‑12/47 aeroplanes that currently have particular oil pipe/hose assemblies installed (explicit P/N list). The legal obligation attaches to aircraft meeting that configuration condition; aircraft without those P/Ns are not in the defined applicability set.

• Risk identification and causal mechanism. The AD identifies abrasive damage (chafing) to oil pipe assemblies around the torque oil pressure transducer as the hazard. The background explains the plausible mechanism: incorrect assembly after maintenance tasks can reduce separation between pipe/hose assemblies and adjacent components, increasing the likelihood of chafing and consequent oil leakage. The AD therefore treats reduced clearance and contact as the proximate mechanical failure mode to be mitigated.

• Inspection plus conditional and mandatory replacement. The AD structures remedial work into an initial configuration check and inspection (to find chafing or distortion), followed by conditional replacement if damage is found and mandatory replacement nonetheless if no damage is found (i.e., eventual replacement of all affected P/N assemblies). This two‑stage structure means inspection determines immediate replacements, but does not negate the obligation to replace the parts identified by P/N in the applicability.

• Manufactured procedure linkage. The AD does not contain detailed technical instructions within the text; instead, it directs operators to paragraphs 3.B, 3.C, 3.D and 3.E of Pilatus Service Bulletin No. 71‑007 for the methods of inspection and replacement. The AD therefore depends on the manufacturer's service bulletin to supply specific procedural detail and the AD requires compliance with that manufacturer's procedural prescriptions.

• Prohibition on re‑installation. The AD explicitly prohibits installation of any oil pipe/hose assembly with a listed P/N on any Pilatus PC‑12 series aircraft. That is not a mere maintenance scheduling instruction; it is a prohibition limiting future parts installation choices for operators and maintainers.

• Time‑phased compliance obligations. The AD differentiates compliance windows: immediate short flight‑hour window (within 10 flight hours), a "before further flight" requirement for at least one action, a mid‑term window (within 6 months) and a post‑14 March 2008 condition. The use of multiple time thresholds implies staggered urgency for different tasks, and requires operators to map which obligations fall into each timeframe.

• Cross‑reference to foreign airworthiness action. The AD notes that EASA AD 2007‑0235 dated 31 August 2007 "refers". The AD therefore acknowledges international regulatory action on the same technical issue and aligns its remedial structure to the manufacturer service bulletin and that European AD for context.

These concepts combine technical risk mitigation (inspect and remove parts with risk of leakage) with procedural delegation (relying on Pilatus SB paragraphs) and time‑bounded enforceable obligations linked to aircraft configuration.

This AD imposes obligations that fall primarily on aircraft owners, operators and maintenance organisations responsible for Pilatus PC‑12, PC‑12/45 and PC‑12/47 aeroplanes that have the listed oil pipe/hose assemblies installed. The applicability clause identifies the direct target: "Pilatus PC‑12, PC‑12/45 and PC‑12/47 aircraft, all serial numbers, with oil pipe/hose assemblies Part Number (P/N) 577.11.12.104, 577.11.12.105, 946.37.74.305, 946.37.74.306, 946.37.74.307, 946.37.74.308 or 946.37.74.311 installed." That configuration test makes the obligation binary for a given aircraft: if any of the listed P/Ns are installed, the AD applies.

Who pays. The source document does not state funding or cost allocation mechanisms. The practical implication is that the operators and owners who control the aircraft and whose maintenance organisations must execute work will bear the direct cost of performing the configuration checks, the inspections, any immediate replacements required, and the eventual replacement of the listed pipe/hose assemblies. The AD directs replacement in accordance with Pilatus Service Bulletin No. 71‑007 paragraphs; procuring replacement parts and arranging maintenance will be the operator/owner's logistical and financial responsibility.

Who decides. The AD is issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) through a delegate, identified in the signature block as Charles Lenarcic, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and it becomes effective on a specific date ("This Airworthiness Directive becomes effective on 25 October 2007"). The regulatory decision to require these inspections and replacements, and to prohibit installation of the listed P/Ns, is therefore a CASA decision implemented via the AD instrument.

Maintenance providers and engineers. Maintenance organisations that perform configuration checks, inspections and replacements must follow the procedures and the referenced paragraphs of the Pilatus service bulletin. The AD refers operators and maintainers to those procedural paragraphs for the technical method, so maintenance organisations must have access to and competence in executing the Pilatus procedures.

Supply chain participants. Suppliers and parts stockists who hold the listed P/Ns are indirectly affected by the prohibition on installing those P/Ns on any Pilatus PC‑12 aircraft. That prohibition may obligate parts holders to quarantine specific stock or to alter supply practices for these P/Ns when dealing with PC‑12 operators.

Flight operations. The compliance time windows include a "before further flight" requirement and a "within 10 flight hours" requirement. These impose operational scheduling constraints on operators: immediate or near‑term maintenance may be required that affects scheduled flights. The AD therefore affects flight planning and utilisation decisions for aircraft possessing the listed parts.

Regulatory relationships. The AD references EASA AD 2007‑0235. Importantly, the AD signals alignment with international airworthiness concerns, which may influence cross‑jurisdiction operators and MROs that operate under multiple regulators.

In sum, the AD directly binds operators/owners of the specified Pilatus PC‑12 aircraft with listed P/Ns installed; maintenance organisations and parts suppliers are affected operationally and commercially; CASA, via its delegate, is the issuing authority and the actor deciding compliance obligations.

The AD imposes specific duties and creates a limited set of prohibitions; it does not set out broader rights or remedies within its text. The principal duties and prohibitions are:

• Applicability-based duty to inspect. For aircraft with any of the listed P/N assemblies installed, the AD requires "Perform a configuration check and inspection of the pipe/hose assemblies for abrasive damage (chafing) and distortion in accordance with paragraph 3.B of PILATUS PC‑12 Service Bulletin No. 71‑007." This is the primary inspection duty that initiates the downstream obligations.

• Conditional replacement duty where damage is found. If abrasive damage (chafing) is found during the inspection described above, the AD requires replacement of the affected hose/pipe assemblies "in accordance with paragraph 3.B, 3.D and 3.E of PILATUS PC‑12 Service Bulletin No. 71‑007." That is a mandatory remedial duty triggered by a positive finding.

• Mandatory eventual replacement where no damage is found. If the configuration check and inspection reveal no damage, the AD nevertheless requires replacement of the hose/pipe assemblies listed in the applicability "in accordance with paragraph 3.B, 3.C and 3.E of PILATUS PC‑12 Service Bulletin No. 71‑007." Thus the AD mandates replacement of the specified P/N components even where immediate damage is not present.

• Installation prohibition. The AD expressly states: "Do not install any oil pipe/hose assembly with P/N 577.11.12.104, 577.11.12.105, 946.37.74.305, 946.37.74.306, 946.37.74.307, 946.37.74.308 or 946.37.74.311 on any PILATUS PC‑12 series aircraft." This is a categorical prohibition affecting future parts installation choices.

• Procedural conformity duty. The AD does not include detailed technical steps; it requires compliance with specific paragraphs of Pilatus Service Bulletin No. 71‑007 for inspection and replacement procedures. The duty is to carry out the named actions "in accordance with" those paragraphs, which makes conformity with the manufacturer's instructions part of the legal duty created by the AD.

• Timeframe duties. The AD sets multiple compliance timeframes that bind when the duties must be performed. The compliance table sets the following: (1) Within 10 Flight Hours (FH) after the effective date of this AD. (2) Before further flight after the effective date of this AD. (3) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD. (4) After 14 March 2008. Operators must map each required action to the applicable time window to ensure timely compliance.

Rights and limitations apparent in the text. The AD does not articulate express rights such as compensation, waivers, or appeals. It does reference EASA AD 2007‑0235 for context but does not create an opt‑out. The document does not set out an explicit mechanism for alternative means of compliance (AMOCs) or exemptions, nor does it describe administrative review processes within the AD itself. Any such rights or processes are not mentioned in the source text.

Record‑keeping and proof of compliance. The AD requires actions to be carried out within specified timeframes and in accordance with the service bulletin; while the AD does not narrate recordkeeping requirements, the practical duty to demonstrate that inspections and replacements were done in accordance with the AD will fall to the operator and maintenance organisation. The AD’s structure makes adherence to the specified paragraphs of the Pilatus service bulletin a compliance metric.

In short, the duties are narrowly technical and time‑bounded: inspect per Pilatus SB paragraph 3.B, replace affected assemblies per paragraphs 3.D/3.C/3.E as specified, and do not reinstall listed P/Ns. The AD does not set out procedural rights or exceptions within its text.

The AD text itself does not include explicit penalty provisions, fines, or an enforcement procedure. The document is presented as an Airworthiness Directive issued by a CASA delegate and states an effective date; it sets mandatory compliance requirements and timeframes but does not specify sanctions or enforcement mechanisms in its text.

What the AD does provide is a set of clear compliance obligations and deadlines: perform the configuration check and inspection in accordance with Pilatus Service Bulletin No. 71‑007 paragraph 3.B; replace affected or listed hose/pipe assemblies in accordance with specified paragraphs of that service bulletin; and do not install listed P/N assemblies on any Pilatus PC‑12 series aircraft. The AD becomes effective on 25 October 2007, which signals that the regulatory obligation is in force from that date.

Because the AD does not articulate enforcement mechanisms, the source document does not describe how CASA will monitor compliance, whether compliance will be audited, whether non‑compliance will attract administrative penalties, or how contraventions will be prosecuted or remediated. The text also does not set out any process for seeking an alternative method of compliance, for requesting relief, or for notifying CASA of compliance actions. Those operational enforcement practices often exist in associated regulatory frameworks or procedures, but they are not stated in the AD’s text and therefore cannot be asserted from this source.

Practically, the AD’s mandatory language and effective date create an obligation that operators and maintenance organisations must implement. The absence of specified penalties in the AD indicates that the document itself is not the source of an express penalty regime; any enforcement or penalties would be founded on the broader regulatory authority under which CASA issues ADs, which is not contained in the AD text provided.

The AD does reference another regulatory instrument, EASA AD 2007‑0235, but does not import its enforcement provisions into the Australian context within the AD document. The AD’s reliance on Pilatus Service Bulletin No. 71‑007 for procedural steps likewise does not contain enforcement language.

Therefore, based solely on the source, enforcement detail and penalties are not specified; the AD sets mandatory actions and dates, leaving the mechanisms for detecting non‑compliance and imposing penalties unstated in the document.

The AD interacts explicitly with two technical regulatory instruments and implicitly with the broader regulatory regime governing airworthiness and maintenance, as indicated by cross‑references in the text.

• Interaction with manufacturer service bulletin. The AD requires inspection and replacement "in accordance with paragraph 3.B, 3.C, 3.D and 3.E of PILATUS PC‑12 Service Bulletin No. 71‑007." That makes the Pilatus service bulletin an integral part of the AD’s compliance regime: the AD prescribes actions but delegates technical method to the manufacturer’s SB. Compliance therefore requires not only reading the AD but executing the manufacturer's specified procedures. The AD thus creates a functional legal linkage where the manufacturer's SB supplies the operational detail the AD mandates.

• Interaction with EASA AD. The AD includes a note: "EASA AD 2007‑0235 dated 31 August 2007 refers." This shows that CASA’s AD is aware of and aligned with an EASA airworthiness action addressing the same technical issue. The AD does not import EASA’s regulatory force directly, but it acknowledges the European regulator’s parallel action, which may be relevant for operators and maintainers operating in or under multiple jurisdictions. The explicit referencing of EASA AD 2007‑0235 means operators should consider both documents when determining compliance posture across different regulatory regimes.

• Interplay with maintenance obligations and approval frameworks. The AD’s requirement that replacements and inspections be carried out in accordance with Pilatus SB paragraphs implies interaction with the regulatory framework that governs maintenance organisation approvals, licencing of certifying staff, and the acceptance of manufacturer instructions as part of airworthiness maintenance standards. The AD does not itself set maintenance competency requirements, but operators must rely upon appropriately authorised maintenance providers to lawfully perform the actions the AD prescribes.

• Prohibition affecting parts installation. The AD’s prohibition "Do not install any oil pipe/hose assembly with P/N [listed] on any PILATUS PC‑12 series aircraft" will interact with parts management, continuing airworthiness practices and inventory control rules. Operators and parts suppliers must reconcile their parts lists and procurement with the AD; the prohibition therefore binds future installation choices and relates to standards governing the use of approved parts and life‑limited or service‑restricted parts established in maintenance regulations (not repeated in the AD itself).

• Timing relative to other regulatory milestones. The AD sets multiple deadlines and a specific effective date (25 October 2007), and references another date, "After 14 March 2008." Operators must reconcile these AD timeframes with other maintenance scheduling and airworthiness directives they face. The AD does not state precedence rules, but the usual practical approach is that compliance with an AD takes priority in affected systems; the AD itself does not state conflict resolution mechanisms.

• No explicit mention of alternative compliance mechanisms. The AD does not describe or permit alternative methods of compliance, exemptions, or deviations, nor does it state how to request waivers. Therefore, interaction with any statutory provisions allowing alternative means of compliance or exemptions is not evidenced in the AD’s text.

In short, the AD establishes a direct legal dependence on Pilatus Service Bulletin No. 71‑007 for procedural detail, acknowledges a corresponding EASA AD, and imposes obligations that require alignment with maintenance, parts and continuing airworthiness regimes. The AD does not, in the text provided, set out how it modifies or displaces other laws; it functions as a specific operational directive within the broader airworthiness framework.

The AD text provided contains metadata that documents its creation and effective timing but contains no amendments, revisions, or supersessions within the text. The following items are in the AD record and constitute the available amendment history entries in the source:

• AD identifier and date stamp. The AD is identified as AD/PC‑12/50 and carries a publication code "11/2007" and a date reference to 2007. The table header lists "AD/PC‑12/50 | Powerplant - Torque Oil Pressure Pipe | 11/2007".

• Signature and signing date. The AD is signed "Charles Lenarcic, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority" and bears the signature date "4 September 2007." That identifies CASA’s delegate who authorised the AD on that date.

• Effective date. The AD explicitly states: "This Airworthiness Directive becomes effective on 25 October 2007." That is the date on which the obligations contained in the AD come into force for the regulated community.

• Cross‑reference to EASA AD. The AD includes the note: "Note: EASA AD 2007‑0235 dated 31 August 2007 refers." That is not an amendment to the AD but indicates contemporaneous regulatory action by another authority that informed or paralleled this AD.

• No recorded amendments or revisions. The source does not contain subsequent amendment entries, reissues, supersessions, or corrigenda. There is no later AD number or revision note within the text that would indicate that this AD has been changed after the effective date given.

• No transitional modifications in the AD text. The AD sets multiple compliance timeframes (within 10 flight hours, before further flight, within 6 months, after 14 March 2008) but these are compliance windows, not amendments.

Because the AD text as supplied does not record any amendment history beyond its signature and effective date, users must treat the AD as initially issued on 4 September 2007 and effective 25 October 2007, with no further changes recorded in this document. If operators require knowledge of any later amendments, superseding ADs, or revocations, they must consult CASA’s current regulatory registers or subsequent notices; such sources are not present in the provided text.

The supplied AD contains no information about litigation, judicial review, appeals, or any court decisions related to this directive. The document does not reference any legal challenges, enforcement actions, or cases. It is a technical regulatory instrument addressing a maintenance and airworthiness concern and the source does not narrate any disputes or litigation arising from the AD.

Consequently, within the bounds of this source, there is no litigation history to report. Any matters such as administrative appeals, compliance disputes, or enforcement proceedings that may have arisen after the AD’s issue date are not included in the text and cannot be inferred or asserted based on the AD itself.

Operators or their advisers seeking litigation history or decisions that interpret or challenge this AD would need to consult external legal databases, court records, or CASA’s own administrative records. Those materials are not contained in the AD text provided here.

The AD is concise but contains features that can create practical or interpretative traps for operators, maintainers and parts managers. The following "gotchas" are drawn from the text and identify points where misinterpretation or logistical oversight could cause non‑compliance or unexpected costs.

• Applicability tied to part numbers, not to observable damage. The AD applies if any of the listed P/Ns are installed, irrespective of current condition. Even if an initial inspection finds no damage, the AD still requires replacement of the P/Ns listed in the applicability. Operators who rely on an inspection‑only approach without accounting for the replacement mandate would be non‑compliant. The relevant text: applicability listing of P/Ns and "If ... no damage ... replace the hose/pipe assemblies as listed in the applicability ..."

• Multiple, overlapping compliance timeframes. The AD sets several different compliance deadlines: "Within 10 Flight Hours (FH) after the effective date of this AD", "Before further flight after the effective date of this AD", "Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD", and "After 14 March 2008." The document does not explicitly map which specific actions correspond to each timeframe in the compliance table; instead, the duty paragraphs are numbered and the compliance entries are numbered. Care is required to map the inspection and replacement steps to the correct timeframe to avoid performing the wrong action too late or unnecessarily early. Misreading could lead to failure to comply with an urgent "before further flight" requirement.

• Reliance on external service bulletin paragraphs. The AD requires actions "in accordance with paragraph 3.B, 3.C, 3.D and 3.E of PILATUS PC‑12 Service Bulletin No. 71‑007." The AD does not include those paragraphs. Operators must obtain the exact Pilatus SB and follow the numbered paragraphs precisely. Failure to access or to implement those specific paragraphs could be deemed non‑compliant even if the operator performs similar work.

• Prohibition on installation of listed P/Ns is global. The AD states "Do not install any oil pipe/hose assembly with P/N [listed P/Ns] on any PILATUS PC‑12 series aircraft." That prohibition applies to any future installation, not merely re‑installation on the same aircraft. Parts managers and supply chains must ensure that the listed P/Ns are quarantined for PC‑12 operations. An unwary parts supplier could supply a listed P/N for use on a PC‑12 and thereby create a compliance issue.

• Immediate operational impact from "before further flight" requirement. One of the compliance entries requires an action "Before further flight after the effective date of this AD." If operators misread which element must be done before further flight, aircraft may be flown contrary to the AD’s immediate safety logic. The AD requires a configuration check and inspection; if certain immediate actions are required before further flight, the operator must schedule that maintenance prior to any next flight.

• Interplay with maintenance reassembly practices. The background notes that incorrect assembly after maintenance can decrease distances between pipe/hose assemblies and adjacent components, creating chafing risk. That means maintenance practices and quality control at disassembly/reassembly are directly implicated. Operators who do not review or adjust maintenance assembly procedures risk recurrent damage or non‑compliance even after replacing parts.

• Parts availability and scheduling. The AD requires eventual replacement of multiple P/Ns and prohibits re‑installation of those P/Ns on PC‑12 aircraft. Depending on stock levels and supply chain timelines, scheduling replacements within the specified time windows (some as short as 10 flight hours or "before further flight") could be logistically challenging. The AD text does not provide allowances for parts shortage.

• Lack of explicit enforcement and alternative compliance pathways. Because the AD does not state enforcement measures or formal processes for alternative compliance, operators who believe an alternative corrective action is appropriate have no avenue described in the AD text to seek acceptance. That elevates the risk of dispute where operators prefer a different technical fix.

• Ambiguity of "after 14 March 2008". The AD sets a date reference "After 14 March 2008" in the compliance list. It does not explain what that date governs within the AD text. Operators must interpret this in context with the rest of the compliance requirements and the Pilatus service bulletin to avoid missing an action that becomes required at or after that date.

In short, the principal gotchas are: the mandatory replacement even when no damage is found; the need to follow specific service bulletin paragraphs; assigning the proper action to multiple time deadlines; the global prohibition on listed P/N installations; and potential operational disruption from immediate time windows without explicit guidance on enforcement or alternative compliance. Each of these stems directly from the AD text and requires attention to avoid lapses.

The AD sets a narrow, prescriptive compliance pathway. Operators, owners and maintenance organisations should follow these steps, grounded in the AD text and the referenced Pilatus Service Bulletin paragraphs, to effect compliance.

1. Confirm applicability. Determine whether the subject aircraft is a Pilatus PC‑12, PC‑12/45 or PC‑12/47 and whether any oil pipe/hose assembly installed matches one of the listed P/Ns: 577.11.12.104; 577.11.12.105; 946.37.74.305; 946.37.74.306; 946.37.74.307; 946.37.74.308; or 946.37.74.311. The AD’s applicability clause is explicit that the AD applies to "Pilatus PC‑12, PC‑12/45 and PC‑12/47 aircraft, all serial numbers, with oil pipe/hose assemblies Part Number (P/N) [listed P/Ns] installed."

2. Obtain the Pilatus Service Bulletin No. 71‑007. The AD requires specific procedures to be carried out "in accordance with paragraph 3.B, 3.C, 3.D and 3.E of PILATUS PC‑12 Service Bulletin No. 71‑007." Secure the correct version of the service bulletin and identify the exact procedural tasks identified in those paragraphs. Do not attempt to substitute procedures without documented acceptance from the regulator, because the AD ties compliance explicitly to those paragraphs.

3. Perform the configuration check and inspection promptly. Execute the configuration check and inspection of the pipe/hose assemblies for abrasive damage (chafing) and distortion in conformity with paragraph 3.B of the Pilatus SB. Map this action to the AD’s compliance time windows. The AD’s compliance table includes an entry "Within 10 Flight Hours (FH) after the effective date of this AD" and another "Before further flight after the effective date of this AD"; determine which of the AD’s numbered compliance items applies to this inspection step and ensure it is performed within the specified window.

4. If chafing or distortion is found, replace affected assemblies immediately. If the inspection identifies abrasive damage (chafing), replace the affected hose/pipe assemblies in accordance with Pilatus SB paragraphs 3.B, 3.D and 3.E, as the AD requires. Execute replacements within the AD’s prescribed timeframe(s) that apply to items requiring immediate corrective action.

5. If no damage is found, schedule and perform replacement of the listed P/Ns. If no damage is detected during the inspection, the AD still requires replacement of the hose/pipe assemblies listed in the applicability. That replacement must be carried out "in accordance with paragraph 3.B, 3.C and 3.E of PILATUS PC‑12 Service Bulletin No. 71‑007." Assign the replacement to the appropriate compliance window in the AD (for example, "Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD" or other deadlines noted in the AD) and ensure parts are procured and maintenance slots scheduled accordingly.

6. Do not install the listed P/Ns on any PC‑12 aircraft. Implement an inventory control step to prevent re‑installation of any of the listed P/Ns on any Pilatus PC‑12 series aircraft. The AD’s prohibition is categorical: "Do not install any oil pipe/hose assembly with P/N [listed] on any PILATUS PC‑12 series aircraft." Remove such items from usable stock for PC‑12 operations, or tag/quarantine them as unsuitable for PC‑12 installation.

7. Document actions and compliance timing. Although the AD does not specify recordkeeping steps, to demonstrate compliance you should create and retain maintenance records showing: the aircraft serial number; identification of the P/Ns inspected or replaced; the dates and flight hours at which inspections and replacements were performed; a reference to the Pilatus SB paragraphs followed; and the identity of the maintenance organisation and certifying personnel. These records will be the primary evidence that the AD requirements were met within the time windows.

8. Coordinate with parts and procurement. Because the AD requires replacement of specific P/Ns and prohibits their installation thereafter, coordinate with parts suppliers to secure replacement parts that meet the Pilatus SB requirements and to ensure that the listed P/Ns are not supplied for PC‑12 use. Plan for lead times and verify part traceability to avoid delays that could breach the AD’s timeframes.

9. Map AD time windows to operational scheduling. The AD includes multiple time thresholds: "Within 10 Flight Hours (FH) after the effective date", "Before further flight after the effective date", "Within 6 months after the effective date", and an action "After 14 March 2008." Carefully map each required action to the AD’s numbered compliance entries and schedule maintenance and flights accordingly to avoid flying in breach of a "before further flight" requirement.

10. Consider regulatory coordination where necessary. The AD notes that EASA AD 2007‑0235 "refers." For operators with multi‑jurisdictional operations, coordinate compliance actions so they satisfy both CASA’s AD and any related international ADs or manufacturer service bulletins. If something about the Pilatus SB or the AD seems incompatible with operational constraints, initiate contact with CASA or the appropriate regulatory point of contact for guidance, recognising that the AD text does not itself provide an alternative means of compliance procedure.

11. Quality control on reassembly practices. Given the AD’s background linking chafing to incorrect assembly after maintenance, review and tighten reassembly and quality control procedures to ensure that clearances are maintained and the root causes of chafing are addressed. Although the AD references Pilatus SB for procedures, an operator’s maintenance quality assurance processes should also verify that the assembly orientation and clearance criteria are met going forward.

Following these steps, strictly in accordance with the Pilatus SB paragraphs referenced and the AD’s timeframes, will put the operator in alignment with the obligations set out in the AD as issued and effective 25 October 2007.