AD/RB211/11 - Fuel Metering Valve Torque Motor Test

Applicability criterion: The AD applies to a defined list of Rolls‑Royce RB211 engine models “with fuel metering units (FMU) at pre S.B. 73‑9282 (increased rating inlet filter mesh) status.” The listed engine models are given verbatim in the AD: “All Rolls Royce RB 211‑524G2‑19/11, RB 211‑524G2‑19/15, RB 211‑524G3‑19/15, RB 211‑524H2‑19/15 AND RB 211‑524H2‑19/15 engines with fuel metering units (FMU) at pre S.B. 73‑9282 (increased rating inlet filter mesh) status.” The text reproduces the RB211‑524H2‑19/15 model twice; the AD as published contains that duplication.

Mandated action and referenced data: The core technical obligation is an “on wing test to determine the serviceability of the fuel metering unit metering torque valve motor” performed “in accordance with Rolls Royce Service Bulletin RB.211‑71‑9270.” The AD therefore does not set out the test procedure itself; it makes the Rolls‑Royce Service Bulletin (SB) the operative technical text.

Temporal limits: The AD sets a deadline for the initial test (“initially, prior to 6 October 1990”) and a recurrent frequency (“thereafter at intervals not exceeding 350 hours time in service”). The temporal obligation is framed in absolute terms (a fixed calendar deadline for the initial action) and a recurring hours‑based maintenance interval after that.

Cross‑references: The AD mentions two other service bulletins. Lucas SB 600‑73‑6726 is stated to “also refer,” and S.B. 73‑9282 (described as “increased rating inlet filter mesh”) is the status marker used in the applicability clause. The AD also states: “Note: Compliance with this SB has been made mandatory by the UK CAA,” referring to the Rolls‑Royce SB RB.211‑71‑9270.

Risk and safety rationale: The AD records three specific incidents where engines ran down uncommanded to sub‑idle, attributed to “a virtual blockage of the fuel metering valve torque motor inlet filter.” The AD identifies the on‑wing test as the mitigation to “reduce the possibility of uncommanded engine run down.”

Regulatory authority: The publishing header situates the AD within Commonwealth regulatory instruments (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998, Part 39‑106) and the CASA Schedule of Airworthiness Directives. The AD thus operates as an airworthiness directive under the Australian civil aviation regulatory framework.

Terminology and constraints visible in the text: “On wing” denotes the test is to be performed without removing the engine from the aircraft (the AD’s phrase is “Perform an on wing test … in accordance with Rolls Royce Service Bulletin RB.211‑71‑9270”). The AD refers to “serviceability” of the torque motor rather than prescribing specific material replacements, thereby tying compliance to the SB’s pass/fail criteria.

The text specifies affected items rather than affected persons. The Applicability paragraph identifies engine models by type and conditions of the FMU: those engines listed that have FMUs “at pre S.B. 73‑9282 (increased rating inlet filter mesh) status” are subject to this AD. The AD does not name operators, owners, maintainers, or the certificate holder categories that must act; the document prescribes an action on engines meeting the applicability criteria.

The practical consequence of that drafting is that any airworthiness stakeholder who possesses, operates, maintains or signs off on one of the listed RB211 engine models will need to determine whether the engine’s FMU is at “pre S.B. 73‑9282 status” in order to establish whether the AD applies. The AD does not define how to establish that status; it simply uses the status as the inclusion criterion.

The AD also affects organisations holding or producing the referenced service instructions: Rolls‑Royce Service Bulletin RB.211‑71‑9270 is incorporated by reference as the source of the required test procedure. Lucas Service Bulletin 600‑73‑6726 “also refers,” meaning relevant maintainers should consult the Lucas bulletin for related guidance. The AD notes that the Rolls‑Royce SB has been made mandatory by the UK CAA, which connects the Australian AD to a parallel UK regulatory requirement; the AD does not, however, state procedural interactions between CASA and the UK CAA beyond that note.

Stakeholders who will need to act in practice include those responsible for maintenance scheduling and airworthiness compliance for aircraft with RB211‑524 variants in the fleet. The AD prescribes an initial compliance date (prior to 6 October 1990) and a recurring interval (every 350 hours TIS or less). Anyone responsible for continuing airworthiness of the affected engines will therefore need to incorporate the test into maintenance planning and track engine hours to ensure compliance with the “not exceeding 350 hours time in service” interval.

The AD text does not allocate costs, nor does it specify which party pays for carrying out the test, record keeping, or for any resulting corrective action. It also does not specify approval, notification, or reporting channels to CASA beyond being published in the CASA Schedule of Airworthiness Directives.

Duties imposed by the AD (as stated in the text)

• Duty to perform the test: “Perform an on wing test to determine the serviceability of the fuel metering unit metering torque valve motor in accordance with Rolls Royce Service Bulletin RB.211‑71‑9270.” The AD makes the Rolls‑Royce SB the operative technical document for the required test (Requirement).

• Timing duty (initial): The test must be done “initially, prior to 6 October 1990” (Compliance).

• Timing duty (recurrent): The test must be repeated “thereafter at intervals not exceeding 350 hours time in service” (Compliance).

• Applicability duty threshold: The duty only attaches where an RB211 engine is identified among the listed types and its FMU is “at pre S.B. 73‑9282 … status” (Applicability).

Rights and procedural details omitted in the text

• The AD does not set out any exemptions, alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs), or delegation pathways in the text. The AD does not specify procedures for seeking relief, nor does it prescribe conditionality or temporary deviations.

• The AD does not specify who is authorised to perform the test. It requires performance “in accordance with Rolls Royce Service Bulletin RB.211‑71‑9270,” but the AD text does not state who is entitled to use the SB or which qualified personnel or licensed engineers must conduct or certify the test.

• The AD does not set out documentation or record‑keeping obligations in its text, nor does it prescribe the consequences for failing the test beyond the implication that the SB will provide serviceability criteria and likely corrective instructions.

Cross‑references that affect duties

• The AD refers to Lucas SB 600‑73‑6726 as also relevant, and to S.B. 73‑9282 as the criterion for applicability. These cross‑references impose a duty on affected parties to consult those SBs to determine status and procedure, because the AD’s operative requirement is tied to the Rolls‑Royce SB and the applicability language refers to S.B. 73‑9282.

• The AD makes explicit that the Rolls‑Royce SB has been made mandatory by the UK CAA; the AD therefore imports a UK CAA decision into the Australian AD’s explanatory text. The AD does not set out any specific interaction mechanisms with the UK CAA decision, but the note signals that the technical procedure has been mandated in another jurisdiction.

Operational effect on duty holders

• Maintenance schedulers and continuing airworthiness managers must allocate an on‑wing test for each affected engine before the initial date and then at no greater than 350‑hour intervals. The AD does not describe how to record the hours or how to demonstrate compliance to CASA, so the duty holder must use their own compliance processes or refer to CASA guidance outside the AD.

• The SB reference means the nature of required corrective actions and the acceptance criteria for serviceability will be found in RB.211‑71‑9270; the AD imposes the duty to follow that procedure but does not reproduce it.

The AD itself does not state specific penalties or enforcement mechanisms within its text. The document is published under the Commonwealth of Australia Civil Aviation Regulations 1998, Part 39‑106, in the CASA Schedule of Airworthiness Directives. The AD therefore exists as an instrument under that regulatory framework, but the AD text does not enumerate enforcement steps, sanctions, or administrative processes for non‑compliance.

What the AD does include that is relevant to enforcement:

• The AD prescribes mandatory actions (the on‑wing test in accordance with Rolls‑Royce SB RB.211‑71‑9270) and fixed compliance timing (initially prior to 6 October 1990 and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 350 hours TIS). The existence of those mandatory prescriptions is the substantive basis for enforcement action under the underpinning regulatory framework (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), but the AD text itself does not set out the enforcement powers or penalties.

• The AD references a UK CAA decision, noting that “Compliance with this SB has been made mandatory by the UK CAA.” That note signals cross‑jurisdictional regulatory alignment but does not alter or specify Australian enforcement measures within the AD.

Enforcement implications that are present in the AD’s structure, but not detailed in the text

• Because the AD mandates a maintenance action at specified intervals, operators and maintainers will be expected to demonstrate compliance through their normal continuing airworthiness records. The AD contains no specifics about acceptable forms of evidence, reporting channels to CASA, or required documentation.

• The AD does not state whether maintenance actions performed in accordance with the referenced SB must be notified to CASA, filed in the aircraft logbook, or otherwise recorded in a particular manner. Those recording and notification expectations would, if required, come from broader regulatory practice or CASA guidance rather than from the AD text itself.

Limitations on what can be concluded from the AD text

• The AD does not specify criminal or civil penalties. It does not describe administrative enforcement steps such as grounding, directives to cease operations, or formal notices. The AD simply imposes a mandatory technical action and a timing schedule; the mechanisms for detection of non‑compliance and the sanctions that CASA might apply are not discussed in the AD text.

Referenced regulatory framework: The AD is placed in the schedule of airworthiness directives under “COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39‑106 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY SCHEDULE OF AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES.” The AD therefore sits within the statutory/regulatory architecture established by the Civil Aviation Regulations 1998. The AD text itself does not reproduce Part 39‑106 or explain procedural interactions; it simply identifies the parent instrument under which the AD is issued.

Incorporation of external technical material: The AD requires performance of the on‑wing test “in accordance with Rolls Royce Service Bulletin RB.211‑71‑9270.” The AD, by reference, imports the content of that SB as the technical method for compliance. The AD does not reproduce the SB or its legal status beyond stating that the test must follow the SB. Practically, that means the SB content determines the precise technical steps, acceptance criteria and corrective actions that are required for compliance with the AD.

Cross‑jurisdictional note: The AD explicitly notes that the Rolls‑Royce SB “has been made mandatory by the UK CAA.” That establishes that a UK regulator has independently mandated the same SB. The AD does not set out any formal mutual recognition protocol, but the note indicates a coordination or parallel action between regulators. The AD does not identify legal consequences of the UK CAA mandate for Australian operators; it is an informational cross‑reference.

Interplay with other service bulletins: The AD’s applicability depends on engines “at pre S.B. 73‑9282 (increased rating inlet filter mesh) status,” and it also says “Lucas SB 600‑73‑6726 also refers.” The two SBs referenced in the AD may change an engine’s status for applicability (S.B. 73‑9282) or provide complementary instructions (Lucas SB). The AD, however, does not specify whether implementation of S.B. 73‑9282 or Lucas SB 600‑73‑6726 alters the AD’s applicability or compliance requirements. Those legal interactions therefore must be resolved by reference to the content of the SBs themselves or to CASA guidance outside the AD text.

Absence of stated alternatives or AMOCs: The AD does not state any alternative methods of compliance or delegation pathways. It does not set out how the AD interacts with operator maintenance programmes, continuing airworthiness management exposition (CAMEs), or approved maintenance organisation procedures. The AD therefore creates a direct reference obligation to the SB without explicitly integrating it into broader administrative processes.

Limits on statutory interpretation from the AD text

• The AD does not specify whether modifications or design changes made after the AD’s date affect its application, other than by the explicit applicability language tied to S.B. 73‑9282 status. The AD does not state whether retrofitting an increased rating inlet filter mesh (if that is what S.B. 73‑9282 does) would remove the engine from the AD’s scope. The AD therefore leaves open functional interactions between embodiment of SB modifications and the continuing applicability of the AD.

The AD text provides a single dated reference point and no explicit amendments. The header gives the AD identifier and the issue date shorthand: “AD/RB211/11 Fuel Metering Valve Torque Motor Test 9/90.” The Compliance paragraph sets an initial date for the first required action: the test must be performed “initially, prior to 6 October 1990,” indicating the AD was operative as of or before that date. No later amendment clauses, revision notes, superseding AD numbers, or variation statements appear in the provided text.

What this means from the text

• Issuance and first compliance: The AD was issued as AD/RB211/11 with the notation “9/90,” and the AD requires initial compliance before 6 October 1990.

• No recorded amendments in this document: The AD, as supplied, does not show any later amendment history, errata, revocations, revisions, or subsequent compliance date changes. The AD text contains no “amendment” or “revision” headings, nor does it reference earlier or later ADs as superseding instruments.

Practical consequence: To determine whether the AD has later amendments, supersessions or revocations, a user would need to consult CASA’s AD index or subsequent entries in the CASA Schedule of Airworthiness Directives, because this single AD text does not show such history. The AD itself provides no internal amendment record.

The AD text contains no reference to litigation, court proceedings, or administrative appeals concerning this directive or the underlying service bulletins. There are no cases named in the text. The Background section records three incidents (engine run‑down events) that motivated the AD, but it does not mention any legal disputes arising from those incidents or from the AD.

From the text

• No judicial or tribunal history is recorded in the AD. The only factual events referenced are the three engine run‑down reports that informed the safety rationale for mandating the test.

• The AD notes that the Rolls‑Royce SB has been made mandatory by the UK CAA, but there is no discussion in the AD of legal challenges or litigation related to that UK CAA action.

If litigation history is required for due diligence or risk analysis, the AD itself does not supply it; external research beyond this AD text would be necessary to uncover any cases, enforcement actions or appeals related to this AD or its associated SBs.

Literal text traps and points that can cause compliance errors if overlooked

• Applicability hinge on FMU status: The AD only applies to engines “with fuel metering units (FMU) at pre S.B. 73‑9282 (increased rating inlet filter mesh) status.” The AD does not define how to determine or document whether an FMU is “pre S.B. 73‑9282 status.” Failure to establish FMU status correctly may lead to misapplied compliance efforts. The AD places the applicability criterion in the initial paragraph, so confirming an engine’s status against S.B. 73‑9282 is a prerequisite to applying the AD.

• Cross‑referenced SBs not included in the AD: The test procedure is not printed in the AD; the AD requires performance “in accordance with Rolls Royce Service Bulletin RB.211‑71‑9270.” Relying on the AD text alone without obtaining the referenced SB risks misperforming the technical test or missing acceptance criteria and corrective measures that are contained only in the SB.

• Timing precision and historic initial date: The AD requires the initial test “prior to 6 October 1990.” That is a fixed calendar deadline. For present‑day readers the date is historical; however, without an amendment history in the AD text, it is unclear whether the AD was later superseded. A reader relying solely on this AD document must verify current status via CASA because the AD as provided does not include later revisions.

• Recurrent interval uses hours TIS: The AD specifies recurrence “at intervals not exceeding 350 hours time in service.” Tracking “time in service” precisely per engine serial and counting hours to ensure the interval is not exceeded is necessary. The AD does not specify tolerances, grace periods or rounding rules for hour counting.

• Duplicated engine model listing: The Applicability clause lists RB 211‑524H2‑19/15 twice. This duplication may be a typographical error in the AD as published, but the AD text includes it verbatim. Processing systems or checklists that rely on exact wording may misinterpret the duplication unless corrected or noted.

• Lucas SB also refers: The AD states “Note: Lucas SB 600‑73‑6726 also refers.” That indicates a related SB exists; however, the AD does not state whether following Lucas SB alone will satisfy the AD, nor does it specify the sequencing or interplay between the Lucas SB and the Rolls‑Royce SB. A practitioner must obtain and cross‑check both SBs when performing the required test.

• UK CAA mandatory status note: The AD notes that “Compliance with this SB has been made mandatory by the UK CAA.” That is an informative note that the SB has been mandated in the UK. The AD does not explain whether the UK CAA’s mandatory action alters any technical details or methods in the SB, nor does it specify whether CASA accepts UK CAA findings as determinative for Australian enforcement. The AD itself simply references the UK CAA action.

Other practical pitfalls

• The AD instructs an “on wing test” but does not specify whether the test can be done during revenue flights, must be done in a maintenance environment, or must be performed at specific power settings. The exact test steps, safety precautions, and pass/fail criteria will be in RB.211‑71‑9270. Misreading the AD as self‑contained technical guidance will lead to improper or incomplete compliance.

• The AD contains no recordkeeping, reporting or notification instructions. Users who assume the AD relieves them from internal recordkeeping obligations would be incorrect; the AD is silent on documentation and therefore does not relieve normal continuing airworthiness logbook practice that operators may be subject to under other regulations.

• The AD does not specify whether engines modified after the AD’s date are excluded. The applicability language tied to S.B. 73‑9282 status suggests that post‑S.B. 73‑9282 engines could be out of scope, but the AD does not say so directly. Without inspecting S.B. 73‑9282 and the SBs it references, an operator cannot assume modification status changes applicability.

Required steps (as set out in the AD text)

1. Determine applicability: For each Rolls‑Royce RB211 engine in inventory, check whether the engine model matches the list in the AD: RB 211‑524G2‑19/11; RB 211‑524G2‑19/15; RB 211‑524G3‑19/15; RB 211‑524H2‑19/15 (the AD lists RB 211‑524H2‑19/15 twice). Then confirm whether the engine’s fuel metering unit (FMU) is “at pre S.B. 73‑9282 (increased rating inlet filter mesh) status.” The AD’s Applicability clause establishes both the model and the FMU status as prerequisites.

2. Obtain the operative SB: Acquire Rolls‑Royce Service Bulletin RB.211‑71‑9270. The AD requires that the on‑wing test be performed “in accordance with Rolls Royce Service Bulletin RB.211‑71‑9270” (Requirement). Do not attempt to substitute or improvise a test procedure; the AD places the SB at the heart of the required method.

3. Consult related guidance: The AD notes “Lucas SB 600‑73‑6726 also refers,” so obtain and review Lucas SB 600‑73‑6726 to identify any additional instructions or clarifications that might apply to the FMU or torque motor test. Also consult S.B. 73‑9282 to clarify the status threshold referenced in applicability.

4. Perform the initial test within the AD’s deadline: The AD requires the initial on‑wing test “prior to 6 October 1990.” If you are reading this AD were it still effective from its publication, perform the initial test before that date. If the historical date has passed and the AD remains on the books, verify current CAS A directives to determine whether a later amendment has changed initial requirements.

5. Implement recurrent testing: After the initial test, perform the on‑wing test “thereafter at intervals not exceeding 350 hours time in service.” Integrate the 350‑hour interval into the engine maintenance tracking system to ensure no interval is exceeded. The AD establishes “not exceeding 350 hours time in service” as the maximum interval between tests.

6. Follow SB acceptance criteria and corrective actions: The AD requires testing “to determine the serviceability of the fuel metering unit metering torque valve motor.” The SB RB.211‑71‑9270 will contain pass/fail criteria and instructions for what to do if the torque motor fails the test. Carry out any corrective actions mandated by the SB.

Practical implementation points consistent with the AD text

• Document the test decision chain: The AD itself does not prescribe recordkeeping formats; however, because the AD requires a recurring test, keeping dated records of the SB‑directed test, serial numbers, engine hours at test, and outcomes will make it possible to demonstrate compliance if required by an inspector or regulator. The AD prescribes the test and the timing; documentation is the primary practical lever to prove compliance in the absence of AD‑specific record rules.

• Synchronise scheduling: Because the recurrence interval is an hours‑based metric (350 hours TIS), integrate the test into engine time tracking and the aircraft’s maintenance schedule. The AD does not provide leniency or a grace period; schedule the test with time cushion to ensure the interval is not exceeded.

• Verify SB currency: The AD requires compliance with Rolls‑Royce SB RB.211‑71‑9270, but service bulletins can be updated. Use the current revision of RB.211‑71‑9270 that is applicable under CASA policies when performing the test in order to align with the AD’s intent and with any later technical clarifications. The AD as printed does not identify a specific SB revision, so check for the latest relevant revision when performing the work.

• Cross‑check modification status: Because applicability is tied to “pre S.B. 73‑9282” status, review maintenance and modification records to confirm whether S.B. 73‑9282 has been embodied on the FMU. The AD does not state whether embodying S.B. 73‑9282 removes the engine from the AD’s scope, so if S.B. 73‑9282 has been embodied, document that evidence and, if necessary, seek confirmation from CASA or your continuing airworthiness authority whether the AD’s requirements remain applicable.

• Consult regulatory contacts if uncertain: The AD provides mandatory instructions but does not specify the process for seeking alternative compliance or clarifying applicability questions. If ambiguity exists about whether a particular engine is in scope or about the interaction of SBs, consult CASA or a nominated continuing airworthiness authority for authoritative direction.

What the AD does not require and therefore does not excuse

• The AD does not relieve maintainers from complying with the detailed instructions and acceptance criteria in RB.211‑71‑9270; the SB contains the operative technical detail and corrective actions.

• The AD does not set out reporting or notification requirements to CASA for completion of the test. Compliance with the test will generally be recorded under normal maintenance record procedures, but the AD itself does not state a reporting format or frequency.

• The AD does not provide an alternative method of compliance or an express mechanism to accept equivalent tests; it mandates the specified Rolls‑Royce SB procedure. If an operator believes an alternative method is necessary, they must seek clarification or approval through CASA processes that are not described in the AD.

Summary checklist (text‑derived)

• Identify RB211 engine serials of the listed models.

• Confirm FMU status relative to S.B. 73‑9282.

• Obtain and follow Rolls‑Royce SB RB.211‑71‑9270 for the on‑wing test.

• Consult Lucas SB 600‑73‑6726 as referenced.

• Perform initial on‑wing test (per AD: prior to 6 October 1990).

• Schedule and perform recurrent tests at intervals not exceeding 350 hours TIS.

• Follow the SB’s corrective actions if the torque motor fails the test.

• Retain records of tests and corrective actions per your organisation’s continuing airworthiness practices; the AD does not prescribe format.