AD/PREMIER/3 - Hydraulic Pump Outlet Tubes

The AD is structured around a small set of operational and technical concepts that determine legal obligation and technical action. Those concepts, as the AD sets them out, are:

• Applicability: The AD is limited to a defined fleet subset. It applies to Hawker Beechcraft Corporation Model 390 aeroplanes serial numbers RB-1 to RB-49 only if Field Service Kit 390-9100 is installed, and to serial numbers RB-50 to RB-209 unconditionally (Applicability). This creates a binary rule: either an aeroplane falls within the listed serial number ranges and kit status, or it does not.

• Inspection trigger and scope: The AD defines routine inspection frequency , initial inspection within 25 hours TIS after the AD takes effect and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS until the retrofit kits are installed (Compliance 1). It also defines event-driven inspections that must be performed “each and every time” until the kits are incorporated (Compliance 2): (a) prior to further flight after an inspection that found evidence of chafing etc.; and (b) within one hour TIS following identification of an intended or unintended engine operation with the hydraulic shutoff valve closed. The inspection scope is visual and targets hydraulic pump outlet tubes for chafing, excessive vibration, wear, deterioration, or hydraulic fluid leakage (Requirement 1).

• Differentiated left- and right-hand engine treatment: The AD prescribes different procedures for the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) engines. For the LH engine, the AD explicitly requires removal of the clamp, inspection, and replacement of the clamp with a new one as specified in Raytheon SB 29-3771 after each inspection (Requirement 1.a). For the RH engine, inspection only is required, and removal/replacement of clamps is “not necessary” (Requirement 1.b). The AD directs use of Raytheon Safety Communiqué No. 267 for the inspection procedures and extends that procedure to the RH engine (Requirement 1).

• Mandatory part replacement and permitted equivalents: The AD requires replacement of the hydraulic pump outlet tube with specified P/Ns (390-580035 for LH, 390-580037 for RH), but it allows the use of “FAA-approved equivalent” parts (Requirement 2). It also specifies that installation work be done in accordance with the Raytheon maintenance manual cited.

• AFM amendment and retrofit kits: The AD mandates incorporation of a Raytheon AFM part number (P/N 390-590001-0003C3TC6) into the aircraft flight manual (Requirement 3) and incorporation of two retrofit kits (390-5804-0001 and 390-5805-0001) (Requirement 4). The AFM insertion has a five-day compliance deadline (Compliance 3). Retrofit kits end the requirement for 25-hour repetitive inspections (Compliance 1 states inspections at 25-hour intervals “until the kits detailed in Requirement 4 of this AD are incorporated”).

• Safety rationale as stated by the issuer: The Background states the AD is issued because of continuing failures of hydraulic pump outlet tubes and the need to incorporate an improved design. The AD sets out the hazard chain: tube failure leads to hydraulic fluid leakage, which could lead to a fire and also to loss of hydraulic system functions including gear extension and brakes (Background).

• Cross-reference to FAA AD and Raytheon documentation: The AD relies on Raytheon Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 29-3771, Raytheon Safety Communiqué No. 267, and the Raytheon Maintenance Manual P/N 390-590001-0015 for detailed procedures and also expressly refers to FAA AD 2007-12-21 (Requirement 1 note; note at end).

Those are the main legal and technical building blocks that convert the AD’s hazard rationale into concrete ongoing obligations for operators of the aircraft to which the AD applies.

The AD identifies affected aircraft and therefore the directly affected parties. The document’s Applicability paragraph sets who is captured: Hawker Beechcraft Corporation Model 390 aeroplanes with serial numbers RB-1 through RB-49 that have Field Service Kit 390-9100 installed, and serial numbers RB-50 through RB-209. The AD is addressed to whoever operates, maintains, or owns those aircraft, because they must carry out the inspections, replacements, AFM amendment, and kit incorporation mandated by the AD.

More specifically, the following roles are implicated by the AD text:

• Aircraft operators and owners: They are the primary duty-holders because the AD imposes recurring inspections at a fixed time-in-service interval (25 hours TIS) and event-driven inspections until retrofit kits are embodied (Compliance 1-2). Operators must ensure the inspections are conducted, parts replaced, kits installed within the compliance windows, and the AFM is amended within five days (Compliance 3-4; Requirement 2-4). The Applicability paragraph defines which aircraft an operator must consider.

• Maintenance organisations and licensed engineers: The AD requires physical removal and replacement of clamps (LH), replacement of hydraulic pump outlet tubes with specified part numbers and maintenance manual procedures (Requirement 1-2). These are tasks for maintenance personnel authorised by the operator, to be carried out in accordance with the Raytheon maintenance manual specified (Requirement 2). Where the AD allows “FAA-approved equivalent” parts, maintenance personnel or their certifying authority must ensure parts are approved equivalents.

• Flightcrew and training departments: Incorporation of the AFM material (P/N 390-590001-0003C3TC6) into the AFM within five days (Requirement 3; Compliance 3) imposes obligations on those responsible for keeping the AFM current. Once the AFM has been amended, flightcrew must operate under the updated AFM procedures and limitations as applicable.

• Regulatory and delegated authorities: The AD is issued under the authority of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) delegate (the document is signed by a CASA delegate). The AD references FAA AD 2007-12-21; regulators and their delegates are implicated by the AD in administering and verifying compliance at oversight and audit.

• Suppliers of parts and kits: The AD requires specific part numbers and kits (P/N 390-580035, 390-580037, kits 390-5804-0001 and 390-5805-0001). Suppliers who stock and support those parts will be the source of the replacements and retrofit kits. The AD permits FAA-approved equivalents for the tubes, which involves parts approval processes for any substitute components.

The AD does not expand the universe of affected parties beyond those connected to the listed aircraft: no other aircraft types or serial numbers are brought in by the AD text. The AD’s obligations and compliance windows are operator-facing duties that flow directly from the aircraft’s listed serial number and installed kit status.

The AD converts safety concerns into discrete duties; it does not expressly articulate rights beyond the implicit ability to use “FAA-approved equivalent” parts. The core duties and the limited discretion afforded by the AD are as follows, quoting and referencing the AD text:

Duties

• Perform visual inspections of the hydraulic pump outlet tube for chafing, excessive vibration, wear, deterioration, or hydraulic fluid leakage using Raytheon Safety Communiqué No. 267 procedures (Requirement 1). For the LH engine, remove the clamp for inspection and replace it with a new one as specified in Raytheon Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 29-3771 dated January 2006 after each inspection (Requirement 1.a). For the RH engine, perform the inspection; removal/replacement of clamps is not necessary (Requirement 1.b).

• Replace the hydraulic pump outlet tube with the specified part numbers P/N 390-580035 (LH) or P/N 390-580037 (RH), or FAA-approved equivalent, in accordance with the Raytheon Aircraft Premier 1 Model 390 Maintenance Manual, P/N 390-590001-0015 (Requirement 2).

• Incorporate Raytheon Aircraft Company Part Number 390-590001-0003C3TC6 dated 16 September 2006 into the aircraft flight manual (Requirement 3).

• Incorporate Kits No. 390-5804-0001 and 390-5805-0001 (Requirement 4).

Temporal and conditional duties

• Initial inspection and continued repetitive inspections: Perform the initial visual inspection within the next 25 hours TIS after the AD’s effective date and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS until the kits are incorporated (Compliance 1).

• Event-driven inspections: Until kits are incorporated, perform an inspection (a) prior to further flight if an inspection disclosed any of the listed defects; and (b) within one hour TIS following identification of any intended or unintended engine operation with the hydraulic shutoff valve closed (Compliance 2).

• AFM requirement timing: Incorporate the AFM material within five days after the effective date, unless previously accomplished (Compliance 3).

• Kit incorporation timing: Incorporate the retrofit kits within the next 25 hours TIS after the effective date, or within the next 45 days, whichever occurs first (Compliance 4).

Limited rights/discretion noted in the AD

• Use of FAA-approved equivalents: The AD allows replacement with the specified P/N or an “FAA-approved equivalent” (Requirement 2). That provides a narrow discretion to use substitute parts that have been approved by the FAA.

• Use of Raytheon documents for procedure: The AD mandates use of Raytheon Safety Communiqué No. 267 and Raytheon Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 29-3771 and the Raytheon Maintenance Manual. The AD thereby constrains methods to those documents for compliance.

The AD expressly frames the duties as necessary to prevent failure leading to hydraulic fluid leakage and associated fire and hydraulic function loss (Background). It also includes a note referencing FAA AD 2007-12-21, which may be relevant to operators seeking cross-jurisdictional compliance alignment, but the AD itself sets the mandatory duties and the timeframes within which they must be done.

The AD text itself does not specify civil or criminal penalties or a penalties regime. As issued, the document is an airworthiness directive from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority delegate, which makes the requirements mandatory for the aircraft to which it applies. The AD establishes compliance timelines and prescriptive actions (inspections, part replacement, AFM amendment, kit incorporation), but it does not contain an explicit penalty table, fines, or enforcement procedures within the text provided.

What the text does show regarding enforcement-relevant mechanisms:

• Mandatory compliance windows and duties: The AD sets definitive deadlines and intervals (for example, initial and recurring inspections at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS until retrofit kits are installed, AFM incorporation within five days, kit incorporation within 25 hours TIS or 45 days). These deadlines make non-compliance identifiable in audit or oversight, creating a clear compliance metric (Compliance 1-4).

• Delegated authority signature: The AD is signed by a delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (the document bears the signature line “David Punshon, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority” dated 29 October 2007). That indicates the AD is issued under CASA authority and is binding within the regulator’s enforcement framework, although the AD text does not itself set out enforcement procedures or sanctions.

• Specified technical references as enforceable methods: The AD makes performance of inspections and replacements contingent on following Raytheon Safety Communiqué No. 267, Raytheon Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 29-3771, and the Raytheon maintenance manual. Use of those specified methods gives auditors or inspectors a technical yardstick against which to assess compliance.

• Interaction with other directives: The AD explicitly refers to FAA AD 2007-12-21 in a note. While the AD does not state enforcement consequences stemming from that FAA AD, operators subject to multiple jurisdictions may be required to reconcile obligations under all applicable directives; oversight authorities enforcing this AD would expect adherence to its specific requirements.

Because the AD text contains no explicit penalty provisions, enforcement mechanisms (suspension of certificate, fines, or administrative sanctions) are not described within the document. The AD does, however, create unambiguous duties with fixed timeframes and prescribes the technical documents that form the compliance standard, which are the concrete instruments an enforcing authority would use to establish non-compliance.

The AD text itself references external aviation safety instruments and technical documents but does not attempt to map its operation onto a wider statutory matrix in the document. The interactions identified explicitly in the AD are limited to:

• Cross-reference to FAA airworthiness directive: The AD contains a note stating “FAA AD 2007-12-21 Amdt 39-15099 dated 4 June 2007 refers” and separately notes that FAA AD 2007-12-21 is referenced. This indicates the Australian AD was issued with knowledge of, and in relation to, a corresponding FAA directive. The AD text does not state how conflict between the instruments would be resolved; it simply refers operators to the FAA AD as a related document.

• Reliance on manufacturer service documents: The AD makes compliance contingent on Raytheon-issued technical publications: Raytheon Safety Communiqué No. 267 dated January 2006, Raytheon Mandatory Service Bulletin No. SB 29-3771 dated January 2006, and the Raytheon Aircraft Premier 1 Model 390 Maintenance Manual P/N 390-590001-0015. It also specifies a Raytheon AFM part number P/N 390-590001-0003C3TC6 dated 16 September 2006 for incorporation into the AFM. Those manufacturer documents become the operative technical means for meeting the AD’s requirements.

• Technical approval and equivalence: The AD permits replacement of the hydraulic pump outlet tube with “FAA-approved equivalent” parts (Requirement 2). That term invokes a process of approval external to the AD itself. The AD does not spell out the approval mechanism, the approving authority, or whether CASA is to accept FAA approvals automatically. It only expressly allows FAA-approved equivalents.

• Regulatory authority and issuance: The AD is signed by a CASA delegate (David Punshon, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority). This situates the AD within CASA’s regulatory remit as an instrument that delegates have the authority to issue. The AD itself does not cite statutory provisions authorising its issuance; that legal basis is not included in the text provided.

• Effect on operational legality: The AD prescribes inspection, replacement and AFM amendment obligations that, while not specifying sanctions, are framed as airworthiness directives. In practice, ADs are legal instruments that must be complied with to maintain an aircraft’s airworthiness and legal ability to operate. The AD text does not set out the consequences of non-compliance, nor does it outline any coordination with other legislative instruments, such as air operator certification or maintenance regulations. Those interactions are left implicit: the AD provides prescriptive technical obligations that are incorporated into an operator’s maintenance and airworthiness compliance regime.

In short, the AD interacts explicitly with manufacturer service material and the referenced FAA AD, and it allows FAA-approved equivalents for parts. The AD does not itself elaborate on dispute resolution, inter-regulatory precedence, or the administrative enforcement pathway; those mechanisms are not contained in the text provided.

The document itself presents a single AD with an issuance date and an effective date and does not include a history of prior or subsequent amendments in the text provided. What the AD records about its history and identification is as follows:

• Identification and date: The AD is identified as AD/PREMIER/3, also shown as AD/PREMIER/3 13/2007 TX. The date lines include a signature date of 29 October 2007 and an effective date statement that the AD “becomes effective on 5 November 2007.”

• Referential amendment note: The AD contains a note referring to FAA AD 2007-12-21 Amdt 39-15099 dated 4 June 2007. That is a cross-reference to a foreign authority’s AD and may reflect parallel action rather than an amendment to the Australian AD. The AD text does not say it amends any prior Australian AD.

• Serial/kit applicability distinctions that may reflect prior service history: The Applicability paragraph distinguishes aircraft RB-1 through RB-49 that “have Field Service Kit 390-9100 installed” versus RB-50 through RB-209. The inclusion of aircraft with Field Service Kit 390-9100 indicates some aircraft in the earlier serial-number range already had a prior service kit installed. That prior work is acknowledged in the applicability but the AD does not chronicle when Field Service Kit 390-9100 was issued or embodied.

• No textual record of prior versions: The AD as presented does not contain a "supersedes" line, no amendment number series beyond its own identification, and no redline or historical notes showing prior iterations. There is no express amendment history recorded in the AD text.

• No record of subsequent amendment within this text: The AD as supplied does not record any subsequent amendments or revocations. It appears as a single-direction instrument with requirements and compliance deadlines. The absence of amendment entries in the AD document means any later amendment would not be reflected here and operators would need to consult CASA’s record or subsequent AD publications to determine any later changes.

Therefore, according to the AD text supplied, the document stands as issued 29 October 2007, effective 5 November 2007, with a referral to the FAA AD for related information. The AD does not itself record prior or later amendments within the provided text.

The AD document contains no litigation history, no references to judicial decisions, and names no cases. The text does not record any appeals, reviews, or legal challenges. The only cross-reference is to FAA AD 2007-12-21 (Amdt 39-15099 dated 4 June 2007) and to Raytheon service documents. The AD is signed by a CASA delegate and dated, but there is no mention of any disputes, stay of operation, or court or tribunal proceedings.

Given the absence of litigation references in the document, the following observations are constrained to what the text shows:

• No cases named: The AD does not name any judicial proceedings or administrative appeals.

• No injunctions or stays indicated: The AD provides compliance deadlines and effective dates with no mention of any temporary relief, deferral, or litigation-driven modification.

• No mention of contested technical issues in a legal setting: The AD’s Background describes the safety concern and the need for improved design following “continuing failures” of the hydraulic pump outlet tubes, but it does not refer to any legal dispute about the facts or the AD’s measures.

Operators or interested parties seeking litigation history would need to consult records external to this AD, including CASA administrative files, court or tribunal decisions, or regulatory logs. The AD as supplied records no litigation or legal challenges and therefore provides no primary-source material on that topic.

The AD contains several technical and administrative details that can produce compliance pitfalls if read or implemented carelessly. The document’s text yields concrete traps and ambiguities operators should note:

• Narrow applicability window: The Applicability limits the AD to specific serial numbers RB-1 through RB-49 only if they “have Field Service Kit 390-9100 installed” and RB-50 through RB-209 unconditionally. Operators must verify serial numbers and the installation status of Field Service Kit 390-9100. Misidentifying applicability (for example assuming all RB-1 through RB-49 are covered regardless of kit status) would be an error because the AD’s plain text includes that conditional clause.

• Distinct LH vs RH procedural requirements: The AD mandates clamp removal and replacement for the LH engine at each inspection (Requirement 1.a) but says removal/replacement of clamps “are not necessary” for the RH engine (Requirement 1.b). Implementers must not apply the LH clamp requirement to the RH engine nor assume the RH engine has the same clamp-action obligation.

• Repetitive inspection until kits installed: The 25-hour TIS inspection interval applies “until the kits detailed in Requirement 4 of this AD are incorporated” (Compliance 1). That means the recurring inspections continue until kits 390-5804-0001 and 390-5805-0001 are embodied on the aircraft. Operators must plan for potentially frequent inspections and ensure retrofit kit availability to stop the recurring burden.

• Event-driven “each and every time” language: Compliance 2 requires an inspection each and every time either (a) an inspection found chafing etc., before further flight, or (b) within 1 hour TIS following any intended or unintended engine operation with the hydraulic shutoff valve closed. The “each and every time” language is explicit and could require immediate grounding or inspection prior to flight in some circumstances. Operators must interpret the timing literally to avoid non-compliance.

• Multiple deadlines that may cause scheduling conflict: The AD sets different timeframes for different duties: initial inspection within 25 hours TIS, AFM incorporation within five days, kit incorporation within 25 hours TIS or 45 days whichever occurs first. The “whichever occurs first” clause can force operators to act sooner than the maximum days-based window if flight hours accrue quickly. Failure to plan for the shorter TIS window can lead to missed deadlines.

• Specified parts and “FAA-approved equivalent” option: Requirement 2 requires replacement with P/N 390-580035 (LH) or P/N 390-580037 (RH) “or FAA-approved equivalent”. The allowance for an FAA-approved equivalent introduces a dependency: using substitutes requires an approval mechanism not described in the AD. Parties must ensure such equivalents are indeed FAA-approved and document approvals.

• Mandatory AFM amendment: Requirement 3 requires incorporation of a specific Raytheon AFM part number into the AFM within five days (Compliance 3). AFM updates typically require configuration control and sign-off; operators need to ensure that administrative processes are in place to make the AFM change within the five-day window.

• Reliance on Raytheon documents for the inspection technique: The AD prescribes use of Raytheon Safety Communiqué No. 267 and SB 29-3771. If operator maintenance organisations do not have immediate access to those documents, there may be ambiguity as to what exact inspection steps satisfy the AD. The AD does not reproduce the inspection steps; it references the documents explicitly.

• Cross-reference to FAA AD may create confusion: The AD’s note referring to FAA AD 2007-12-21 could lead operators to conflate compliance obligations between jurisdictions. The AD sets the Australian obligations and scheduling; operators should not assume compliance with the FAA AD fulfills this AD unless the actions and timing align.

• No explicit enforcement remedies recorded: The AD does not set out penalty clauses within the text. That absence might tempt some parties to deprioritise compliance, but the AD’s clear deadlines and CASA delegate signature indicate that the AD is a binding directive; operators should not infer lax enforcement simply because sanctions are not recited in the text.

These concrete “gotchas” are direct consequences of the AD’s wording: differences in LH/RH treatment, serial-number conditionality, the “until kits are incorporated” stoppage condition, short temporal windows, specified technical references, and the allowance for FAA-approved equivalents all create operational and administrative complexities that must be handled deliberately.

The AD sets out concrete steps and timing; compliance is achieved by performing the specified inspections, replacements, AFM amendment, and kit installation within the prescribed windows and according to the Raytheon technical documents cited. A compliance checklist, derived from the AD text, is the following sequence of actions:

1. Determine applicability:

   • Verify the aircraft is a Hawker Beechcraft Model 390 and confirm the serial number falls within RB-1 to RB-49 (and whether Field Service Kit 390-9100 is installed) or RB-50 to RB-209 (Applicability). If the aircraft is not within those serial number and kit criteria, the AD does not apply.

2. Immediate actions upon effective date:

   • Carry out the initial visual inspection on the hydraulic pump outlet tube within the next 25 hours TIS after the AD’s effective date (Compliance 1). Use Raytheon Safety Communiqué No. 267 for inspection procedures as required by Requirement 1.

3. Inspection procedure specifics:

   • For the LH engine: remove the clamp, perform the inspection, and replace the clamp with a new one as specified in Raytheon Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 29-3771 dated January 2006 after each inspection (Requirement 1.a). Ensure the new clamp installation follows the SB’s instructions.
   • For the RH engine: perform the inspection using the same inspection procedures (Requirement 1.b); removal or replacement of clamps is not required for the RH engine.

4. Event-driven inspections and pre-flight obligations:

   • Until the retrofit kits are incorporated, perform an inspection prior to further flight when any of the listed defects (chafing, excessive vibration, wear, deterioration, hydraulic fluid leakage) are found during an inspection (Compliance 2.a).
   • Also, perform an inspection within one hour TIS following any identified intended or unintended engine operation with the hydraulic shutoff valve closed (Compliance 2.b).

5. Replacement of hydraulic pump outlet tube:

   • Replace the hydraulic pump outlet tube with P/N 390-580035 for the LH engine or P/N 390-580037 for the RH engine, or use an FAA-approved equivalent, performing the replacement in accordance with Raytheon Aircraft Premier 1 Model 390 Maintenance Manual P/N 390-590001-0015 (Requirement 2). Ensure replacement work is documented and performed by appropriately authorised maintenance personnel following the maintenance manual.

6. AFM incorporation:

   • Incorporate Raytheon Aircraft Company P/N 390-590001-0003C3TC6 dated 16 September 2006 into the aircraft flight manual within five days after the AD’s effective date, unless previously done (Requirement 3; Compliance 3). Ensure the AFM amendment is recorded and that flightcrew are notified and trained where necessary.

7. Retrofit kit incorporation to end repetitive inspections:

   • Install Kits No. 390-5804-0001 and 390-5805-0001. The AD requires incorporation within the next 25 hours TIS after the effective date, or within the next 45 days after the effective date, whichever occurs first (Compliance 4). Coordinating procurement and maintenance resources to meet the shorter of the TIS or days window is necessary.

8. Documentation and traceability:

   • While the AD does not specify record-keeping requirements, practical compliance requires documenting inspections, clamp replacements (LH), any findings of defects and subsequent actions prior to further flight (Compliance 2.a), tube replacements, AFM incorporation, kit installations, and any FAA approvals for equivalent parts used (Requirement 2). Keep the Raytheon documents used for procedures on file.

9. Use specified guidance:

   • Follow Raytheon Safety Communiqué No. 267 for inspection procedures and Raytheon SB 29-3771 for LH clamp replacement procedure, and the Raytheon maintenance manual for tube replacement (Requirement 1-2). If using FAA-approved equivalent parts, retain evidence of the equivalence approval.

10. Cross-reference FAA AD where applicable:

• The AD notes FAA AD 2007-12-21 refers, and operators with obligations in multiple jurisdictions should check alignment. However, compliance with this AD requires following the obligations and timing set out here.

Implementers should sequence work to avoid unnecessary downtime: for example, aim to have retrofit kits available and scheduled so that the 25-hour TIS recurring inspections can be discontinued once kits are embodied (Compliance 1). Ensure maintenance scheduling accounts for event-driven inspections that could be required before flight if defects are discovered or an engine event with the hydraulic shutoff valve closed occurs (Compliance 2). Finally, ensure maintenance personnel and flight operations have access to and use the Raytheon technical documents cited by the AD, and document all work and approvals in the aircraft’s maintenance and airworthiness records.