AD/PREMIER/6 - Hydraulic Pump Pressure Output Hose

The document’s central concepts are: aircraft applicability, identification and inspection of particular hose assemblies, criteria for further action based on inspection outcomes, replacement requirements, and prescribed compliance timing. The AD uses the manufacturer’s mandatory service bulletins as the operative procedural references.

Applicability

• The population is defined narrowly. The AD applies to Hawker Beechcraft Corporation Model 390 aeroplanes with specified serial numbers: S/N RB-1 and RB-4 through RB-209 where hose kit 390-5805-0001 was installed during compliance with Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory SB 29-3800 dated May 2007; plus S/N RB-210 through RB-239 (Applicability). The AD therefore treats installation history and serial number as gatekeepers to whether the AD applies to any specific aeroplane.

Identification and inspection

• Requirement 1 requires operators to inspect for the “suspect engine hydraulic pump pressure output hose assemblies” identified as left P/N 170H143-6CR-0174 and right P/N 170H192D0394C275, by examining identification tags for work order numbers and manufacturing dates listed in Table 1 of Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory SB 29-3897 dated August 2008 (Requirement 1). The AD therefore short-circuits detailed physical testing at the first stage and relies on tag-based identification consistent with the manufacturer’s bulletin.

Leakage inspection and repetitive checks

• If an affected hose assembly is found on the aircraft, Requirement 2 directs inspection for hydraulic fluid leakage “in accordance with Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory SB 29-3897.” The Compliance block prescribes that the initial inspection for both identity and leakage is to occur within 10 hours TIS after the AD’s effective date. Thereafter, repetitive inspections for leakage are required at intervals not to exceed 10 hours TIS until either 40 hours total TIS is accumulated on the installed hose assembly or the hose assembly is replaced following the service information. This sequence creates a short window of high-frequency checks while the suspect hose remains in service.

Replacement triggers and timing

• Requirement 3 mandates replacement of the hose assembly. The Compliance text clarifies when replacement must occur: replacement is required either before further flight after any inspection where hydraulic fluid leakage was found, or within the next 200 hours TIS after the effective date of the AD or within the next 6 months after the effective date of the AD, whichever occurs first. Thus the AD provides an immediate mandatory replacement trigger upon detection of leakage and a broader scheduled replacement deadline for affected hoses even if leakage is not detected.

Reference to external authorities and materials

• The AD requires the use of Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory SB 29-3897 (August 2008) for identification and leakage inspection procedures, and it references Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory SB 29-3800 (May 2007) in defining applicability where hose kit 390-5805-0001 was installed during compliance with that earlier SB. The AD also explicitly notes FAA AD 2008-22-11 Amendment 39-15707 dated 17 October 2008 as a related document (Requirement 1 Note).

Safety objective

• The background states the proximate hazard: reports of hydraulic leaks from the hydraulic pump pressure output hose assemblies and the risk that leakage in the engine compartment could cause an in-flight fire. The AD frames the inspection and replacement measures as intended to prevent that occurrence (Background).

Administrative detail

• The AD records its effective date as 3 November 2008 and is signed by a CASA delegate, James Coyne, on 28 October 2008. The AD is catalogued as AD/PREMIER/6, Hydraulic Pump Pressure Output Hose, dated 13/2008 DM.

Together these concepts set out a targeted, time-limited safety intervention: identify potentially affected hoses by tag, inspect frequently for leakage while they remain in service, and replace affected hoses by defined triggers or deadlines using the manufacturer’s service instructions.

The AD explicitly addresses persons operating Hawker Beechcraft (Raytheon) Model 390 aeroplanes that meet the Applicability criteria. The source defines that population precisely by serial number and by installation history of a named hose kit during compliance with a prior mandatory service bulletin (Applicability). Concretely the AD applies to:

• Operators and owners of Model 390 aeroplanes with S/N RB-1 and RB-4 through RB-209 provided hose kit 390-5805-0001 was installed during compliance with Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory SB 29-3800 dated May 2007. The AD thus links applicability to both airframe serial number and documented maintenance action, so an aircraft with the serial number range but without that hose kit installed during the specified SB compliance would not fall within the first sub-category.
• Operators and owners of Model 390 aeroplanes with S/N RB-210 through RB-239. The AD does not further condition this second serial-number block in the Applicability text.

The AD uses the second-person pronoun “you” in the Requirements, indicating the obligation falls on the aircraft operator or maintenance organisation responsible for the aeroplane’s continued airworthiness. The AD states “This AD requires you to inspect hydraulic pump pressure output hose assemblies … and replace all affected hose assemblies” (Background; Requirement summary), so the formally directed duty is on the operator or maintenance release-holder who must perform the inspection and undertake the replacement work.

There are also secondary affected parties:

• Maintenance organisations and engineers who perform the identification inspection, leakage inspection and replacement, because the AD mandates work to be carried out in accordance with Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory SB 29-3897. Those organisations must have access to the service bulletin and the technical capability to follow its procedures.
• Parts suppliers and logistics providers that supply replacement hose assemblies may be affected by a surge in replacement demand triggered by the AD’s deadlines.
• Aircraft registrars and continuing airworthiness managers would be obliged de facto to ensure the AD’s requirements are fulfilled for each affected aircraft they manage, given the AD’s mandatory nature.

The AD does not identify or name specific maintenance organisations, nor does it set out any exemptions or alternative compliance methods within the text. The source does not specify how compliance must be recorded, who certifies the compliance beyond the directional “you,” or whether any cost recovery or assistance is provided by the manufacturer or regulator. The AD’s note referencing FAA AD 2008-22-11 suggests there is a related FAA action, which may affect international operators or owners of US-registered aircraft, but the AD itself is directed at aircraft within CASA’s remit as described by the Applicability field.

In short, the primary financial and operational obligations fall on operators and owners of the listed Model 390 aeroplanes and on the maintenance organisations they use, who must carry out the tag-check, leakage inspections and replacement actions within the prescribed timeframes.

The AD creates precise duties for operators of affected aircraft. The source sets out three numbered requirements and compliance timing that together make mandatory the identification, inspection and replacement of specified hydraulic pump pressure output hose assemblies.

Key duties

• Identification inspection (Requirement 1): Operators must inspect for suspect engine hydraulic pump pressure output hose assemblies, identified left P/N 170H143-6CR-0174 and right P/N 170H192D0394C275, by checking identification tags for work order numbers and manufacturing dates listed in Table 1 of Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory SB 29-3897, dated August 2008. The duty is to perform this tag-based identity inspection (Requirement 1).
• Leakage inspection (Requirement 2): If the initial identification reveals that one of the affected hose assemblies is installed, the operator must inspect for evidence of hydraulic fluid leakage in accordance with SB 29-3897 (Requirement 2).
• Replacement (Requirement 3): The operator must replace the hose assembly where required by the AD. The AD’s Compliance text clarifies replacement timing: replacement before further flight after any inspection where hydraulic fluid leakage was found, or within the next 200 hours TIS after the effective date of the AD or within the next 6 months after the effective date of the AD, whichever occurs first (Requirement 3; Compliance).

Timing obligations

• Initial inspection(s) are to be done within 10 hours TIS after the effective date of the AD (Compliance: For Requirement 1; For Requirement 2).
• If an affected hose assembly is present, leakage inspections are repetitive at intervals not to exceed 10 hours TIS until one of two end conditions occurs: 40 hours total TIS accumulated on the installed hose assembly, or the hose is replaced following the procedures in the service information (Compliance: For Requirement 2).
• Replacement must occur immediately if leakage is found such that it is required “before further flight,” otherwise replacement must occur within a medium-term window (200 hours TIS or 6 months whichever first) following the AD’s effective date (Compliance: For Requirement 3).

Prescriptive reference to service instructions

• The AD requires that inspections and replacements be performed in accordance with Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory SB 29-3897 (Requirement 1 and Requirement 2). This makes the manufacturer’s service bulletin the operative technical standard for how to carry out the inspections and replacements.

Rights and omissions in the source

• The AD does not include provisions for alternative methods of compliance within its text. The source does not provide an exemption, an approved alternative procedure, nor does it detail how one might seek relief from the AD’s requirements.
• The AD does not state any appeal process, review mechanism or administrative rights in the text supplied. The AD likewise does not specify record-keeping obligations or proof-of-compliance formats.

Who decides

• The AD is issued by CASA and signed by a CASA delegate, James Coyne (signature block). The AD becomes effective on the date specified and therefore imposes obligations that target the operator to act. The decision to identify, inspect and replace as required rests on the operator implementing the AD using the mandated service bulletin.

In sum, the operative duties are direct and time-bound: inspect tags, inspect for leakage if affected hoses are present, replace affected hoses according to immediate or scheduled triggers, and perform all work in accordance with the manufacturer’s mandatory service bulletin. The AD does not, within the supplied text, create or describe procedural rights of challenge, alternative compliance pathways, or administrative review.

The AD text supplied does not state any specific penalties, fines, or enforcement measures for non-compliance. The instrument is presented as an Airworthiness Directive with mandatory requirements, and it is signed by a CASA delegate, but the AD itself, as reproduced in the source, does not include any enforcement section specifying sanctions, civil penalties, or criminal liability for failure to comply.

What the AD does state

• The AD states obligations in mandatory language: “This AD requires you to inspect hydraulic pump pressure output hose assemblies … and replace all affected hose assemblies” (Background; Requirements). It provides explicit compliance timeframes and technical references to Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory SB 29-3897 for the execution of inspections and replacements. The AD’s effective date is specified (3 November 2008).

What the source does not state

• The AD does not set out the enforcement authority, inspection oversight procedures, or the specific statutory or regulatory penalties that will apply for failure to comply. There is no language in the text supplied about rectification periods imposed by the regulator, suspension of certificates, grounding of aircraft, administrative fines, or criminal offences. The AD likewise does not describe how CASA will verify compliance or whether CASA will require submission of compliance reports or maintenance records.

Implications to be drawn from the source

• Because the AD is framed as a mandatory safety directive and is issued by CASA, the obligations are expressed as mandatory. The reader should therefore regard compliance as required by the AD. However, any statement about how CASA will enforce the AD, or what specific sanctions might follow non-compliance, would go beyond the supplied source unless further statutory or regulatory material is consulted. The AD itself does not specify those enforcement mechanics.

Reference note

• The AD also notes FAA AD 2008-22-11 Amdt 39-15707 dated 17 October 2008 as a related instrument. The AD does not set out whether or how the FAA AD’s enforcement mechanisms apply to Australian operators; it merely references the FAA AD (Requirement 1 Note).

Practical consequence

• Operationally, the absence of enforcement details in the AD text means parties that need clarity on enforcement outcomes or oversight procedures should consult CASA’s broader regulatory framework or CASA directly. The AD, however, is explicit about the technical requirements and timing for inspection and replacement, which operators must implement.

The AD explicitly interacts with manufacturer-issued mandatory service bulletins and references a related FAA airworthiness directive. The source sets out these interactions in the text:

Manufacturer service bulletins

• The AD requires use of Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory Service Bulletin 29-3897, dated August 2008, for identifying affected hose assemblies by reference to Table 1 and for inspecting for hydraulic fluid leakage (Requirement 1 and Requirement 2). The AD’s Applicability also references Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory SB 29-3800 dated May 2007 with respect to which aircraft had hose kit 390-5805-0001 installed during compliance with that SB.
• By mandating compliance with specified mandatory service bulletins, the AD integrates manufacturer instructions into the regulator’s compulsory safety rule. The AD does not exhaustively reproduce the procedural details from the SB; instead the SB is incorporated by reference for the technical steps required.

Reference to FAA AD

• The AD contains a note stating “FAA AD 2008-22-11 Amdt 39-15707 dated 17 October 2008 refers.” This is an explicit cross-reference to a related FAA action. The AD does not elaborate on the legal effect of that FAA AD for Australian operations, nor does it import any specific FAA compliance measures into the CASA AD text beyond the note.

Broader statutory and regulatory framework

• The AD is issued by CASA and signed by a delegate. The AD itself does not reproduce the broader legislative or regulatory authority under which CASA issues ADs, nor does it cite the particular statutory provision empowering CASA to issue airworthiness directives. The supplied source therefore does not describe the parent statutory regime, the enforcement powers for non-compliance, or procedural rules governing CASA AD issuance. Statements about those frameworks would require reference to the core aviation safety legislation and regulations, which are not included in the supplied text.

Interplay with operator maintenance obligations

• The AD directs work in accordance with Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory SB 29-3897. Within the ordinary maintenance and continuing airworthiness regime, operators are already required to keep aircraft airworthy and to comply with applicable ADs and mandatory service bulletins. The AD therefore functions as a regulatory instrument that amends the operator’s set of continuing airworthiness obligations by adding a specific inspection/replacement programme for the named hose assemblies.

International operators and registries

• The AD’s reference to the FAA AD suggests a parallel or corroborating action by the FAA for overlapping safety concerns. The CASA AD does not state how it interacts with foreign registries or whether compliance with one AD satisfies the other. The supplied text leaves those cross-jurisdictional interactions unspecified beyond noting the FAA AD.

In summary, the AD interacts directly with manufacturer mandatory service bulletins by requiring compliance with them, and it references a related FAA AD. The AD does not, within the supplied text, elaborate the broader statutory basis for CASA ADs, any enforcement processes in other laws, or cross-jurisdictional harmonisation details.

The AD text provided contains no amendment history for the CASA AD itself. The document as reproduced is dated and effective as follows:

• The AD is catalogued as AD/PREMIER/6, Hydraulic Pump Pressure Output Hose, numbered 13/2008 DM (header).
• The AD is signed by James Coyne, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and dated 28 October 2008 (signature block).
• The AD states it becomes effective on 3 November 2008 (Compliance block).

What is present in the source

• The AD contains a Note that references FAA AD 2008-22-11 Amendment 39-15707 dated 17 October 2008. That reference is to a different jurisdiction’s AD rather than being a recorded amendment of the CASA AD.

What is not present in the source

• There is no record in the supplied text of any prior Australian AD amending or superseding this AD, nor is there any subsequent Australian amendment, cancellation, or superseding AD documented in the supplied material.
• The AD does not include a “supersedes” line or an “amended by” line in the body of the text as reproduced here.
• The text does not supply a history of revisions to the AD or an index of amendment dates.

Relevant manufacturer documentation dates (not amendments to the AD)

• The AD cites Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory SB 29-3897 dated August 2008 and Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory SB 29-3800 dated May 2007 as operative manufacturer documents. Those are not amendments to the CASA AD but are referenced technical materials. The FAA AD referenced is dated 17 October 2008.

Practical implication

• For purposes of compliance and risk management, the absence of an amendment history in the supplied text means that, as provided, the AD stands as issued effective 3 November 2008. Any practitioner seeking to know whether later amendments, extensions, or revocations exist will need to consult CASA’s official AD registry or later publications. The supplied text does not provide that follow-up information.

The source contains no litigation history. The AD document reproduces the regulatory directive, its requirements and compliance times, and a related FAA note; it does not mention any court proceedings, appeals, administrative reviews, or legal challenges, nor does it reference any case law.

What the source does provide

• The AD records the safety concern that prompted the directive (reports of hydraulic leaks and the risk of in-flight fire), the mandatory actions required (identification, leakage inspection, replacement), and the compliance regime (timing and service bulletin references), but it does not refer to any adjudicative or judicial processes surrounding the AD.

What the source does not provide

• There is no indication in the AD whether any party objected to the directive, sought review, or otherwise initiated litigation. There are no case citations, no mention of appeals to an administrative tribunal, and no recorded dispute resolution language in the text.

Practical consequence

• If a practitioner needs information about any litigation connected to this AD, or challenges to CASAs issuance of it, that information is not contained in the supplied document and would have to be located in external legal records, court files or CASA administrative records. As reproduced, the AD contains no litigation history.

This AD contains several practical specifics that can cause non-obvious operational or compliance issues if overlooked. The following points are drawn directly from the source and describe mechanics that can be easy to miss:

Applicability depends on both serial number and documented maintenance history

• The Applicability section conditions coverage in the first serial-number block on whether hose kit 390-5805-0001 was installed during compliance with Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory SB 29-3800 dated May 2007. That means simply being within the RB-4 to RB-209 serial-number range does not automatically create an obligation unless the hose kit installation history matches. Operators must check maintenance records to determine whether the specific hose kit was installed during the specified SB compliance (Applicability). This record-based gate means maintenance records need to be accessible and accurate; absent documentation the operator may need to treat the aircraft as applicable until records confirm otherwise.

The identity check is tag-based and references Table 1 in SB 29-3897

• Requirement 1 instructs the operator to identify suspect hose assemblies by examining identification tags for work order numbers and manufacturing dates listed in Table 1 of SB 29-3897. The AD therefore requires operators to rely on tag information and on a specified table in the SB. If tags are missing, illegible, or inconsistent with the table, the AD does not specify an alternative method in the supplied text, which could create uncertainty about whether the hose is “affected” (Requirement 1). Operators should be mindful that the AD ties identification to the SB’s Table 1.

Short initial inspection window and frequent repetition

• The initial inspection for identity and for leakage (if affected hoses are present) must be done within 10 hours TIS after the effective date (Compliance: For Requirement 1 and For Requirement 2). If an affected hose is installed, the AD requires repetitive leakage inspections at intervals not to exceed 10 hours TIS until either 40 hours total TIS is accumulated or the hose is replaced. This creates a period of high-frequency inspection obligations, which can be operationally disruptive if an aircraft is in frequent service.

Replacement timing complexity

• Replacement is required “before further flight” after any inspection that finds leakage. Separately, replacement must occur “within the next 200 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD or within the next 6 months after the effective date of this AD whichever occurs first” (Compliance: For Requirement 3). Practically, operators must track both the immediate trigger of leakage-related replacement and the broader scheduled replacement deadline. The phrase “whichever occurs first” in the scheduled replacement clause creates a calendar/TIS interplay that requires tracking both metrics.

Service bulletin incorporation, not reproduction

• The AD does not reproduce the inspection or replacement procedures; it requires that work be done “in accordance with Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory SB 29-3897.” Therefore the operator must obtain and follow the SB for the procedural steps. Failure to follow the SB exactly is not addressed in the AD text, which is silent on whether deviations are permitted or how they are to be approved (Requirement 1, Requirement 2).

No enforcement or record-keeping detail in the AD text

• The AD does not provide specific directions about how to document compliance, how to present proof to CASA, or what records must be retained. The supplied text does not state whether operators must submit compliance reports. This omission can create operational uncertainty about audit and oversight expectations.

Cross-reference to an FAA AD

• The AD contains a note referring to FAA AD 2008-22-11. The CASA AD does not explain whether compliance with the FAA AD would satisfy the CASA AD or vice versa. Operators who are dual-registered or operate internationally may find the relationship between the instruments unclear based on the text alone.

Effective date post-dating signature

• The AD is signed on 28 October 2008 and becomes effective on 3 November 2008. Operators must ensure initial inspections occur within 10 hours TIS after the effective date, not the signature date. The time lag between signature and effective date could be overlooked.

In short, the AD’s reliance on service-bulletin tables and tags, its record-conditioned applicability, its short inspection intervals, and absence of procedural enforcement detail are all operational points that can generate compliance risk if not actively managed.

The AD prescribes a concrete set of steps to achieve compliance. Below is a compliance checklist mapped to the AD’s Requirements and Compliance text, together with operational notes that flow from the AD’s mechanics. All steps reference the AD’s instructions and the service bulletin identified by the AD.

Compliance checklist (stepwise)

1. Confirm applicability

   • Check the aeroplane serial number. If the aeroplane is S/N RB-1, RB-4 through RB-209, confirm whether hose kit 390-5805-0001 was installed during compliance with Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory SB 29-3800 dated May 2007. If the hose kit was installed during that SB compliance, the aircraft is within the first applicability block. If the aeroplane has S/N RB-210 through RB-239, it is within the second applicability block (Applicability).
   • Operational note: Do not assume applicability solely from serial number if maintenance records do not show installation of the named hose kit for the first serial-number block.

2. Obtain Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory SB 29-3897 (August 2008)

   • The AD requires use of the SB for identification and leakage inspection procedures. Acquire the SB and specifically Table 1 referenced by the AD (Requirement 1; Requirement 2).

3. Perform the initial identification inspection within 10 hours TIS after the AD’s effective date (3 November 2008)

   • Inspect the hydraulic pump pressure output hose assemblies for left P/N 170H143-6CR-0174 and right P/N 170H192D0394C275 by examining identification tags and checking work order numbers and manufacturing dates against Table 1 in SB 29-3897 (Requirement 1; Compliance: For Requirement 1).
   • Operational note: If tags are illegible or missing, the AD does not provide an alternate identification method. In such circumstances operators should follow the procedural instructions in SB 29-3897 for tag issues, if present, or seek technical clarification from Hawker Beechcraft or CASA outside the text of the AD.

4. If an affected hose assembly is not installed

   • No further action under this AD is required (Requirement 1). Document the inspection and the basis for concluding the AD is not applicable (though the AD does not specify recordkeeping requirements, maintaining evidence of inspection is standard continuing airworthiness practice).

5. If an affected hose assembly is installed

   • Inspect for evidence of hydraulic fluid leakage in accordance with Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory SB 29-3897. Perform this initial leakage inspection within 10 hours TIS after the effective date and then repetitively at intervals not to exceed 10 hours TIS until either 40 hours total TIS has been accumulated on the installed hose assembly or the hose assembly is replaced following SB procedures (Requirement 2; Compliance: For Requirement 2).
   • Operational note: Implement a tracking mechanism for TIS so you can enforce 10-hour inspection intervals reliably and track cumulative TIS against the 40-hour threshold.

6. If hydraulic fluid leakage is found at any inspection

   • Replace the hose assembly before further flight, following the replacement procedures in SB 29-3897 (Requirement 3; Compliance: For Requirement 3).
   • Operational note: Ensure spare parts availability or plan for ferrying the aircraft to a maintenance facility where replacement can be carried out before further flight.

7. If no leakage is found during the repetitive inspection period

   • Replace the hose assembly within the next 200 hours TIS after the AD’s effective date or within the next 6 months after the effective date of the AD, whichever occurs first (Compliance: For Requirement 3).
   • Operational note: The “whichever occurs first” clause means calendar time may be the limiting factor. For high-utilisation aircraft, TIS may exhaust the 200-hour threshold before 6 months elapse; for lower-utilisation aircraft, the 6-month calendar deadline will likely be the binding constraint.

8. Follow all procedures in SB 29-3897 when carrying out identification, leakage inspections and replacement

   • The AD requires work to be performed “in accordance with Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory SB 29-3897.” Ensure technicians use the SB’s exact method steps and torque/installation notes as applicable.

9. Record-keeping and audit readiness

   • Although the supplied AD does not prescribe record-keeping formats or submission requirements, best practice under continuing airworthiness duties is to record inspections, findings, replacements and part numbers installed. Keep dated entries of TIS at time of inspection and any maintenance release documentation referencing compliance with the AD and the SB.

10. Coordinate with supply and maintenance planning

    • Because replacement may be required before further flight if leakage is detected, ensure access to replacement hose assemblies and qualified maintenance personnel. Plan inventory where possible for the replacement deadline (200 hours TIS or 6 months) to minimise grounded time.

11. Note the related FAA AD

    • The AD references FAA AD 2008-22-11 Amdt 39-15707 dated 17 October 2008. If the aeroplane is also registered in a jurisdiction subject to FAA ADs, review the FAA AD to determine whether compliance obligations overlap or differ.

12. Effective date compliance timing

    • The AD is effective on 3 November 2008. All initial inspections must occur within the 10-hour TIS window following that effective date (Compliance: For Requirement 1 and For Requirement 2).

Limitations and practical caveats from the source

• The AD does not provide alternative method of compliance clauses or guidance on how to request relief. If an operator believes a different procedure is suitable, the AD text does not state a process for approval of alternatives, so operators should contact CASA if they require variance or clarification.
• The AD references the SB rather than reproducing the technical steps. Ensure that SB 29-3897 is on hand and that technicians are trained in its procedures.

Following the above checklist aligns action precisely to the AD’s text: identify by tag, inspect for leakage per SB, replace when required, and meet the specified timing windows.