AD/ROBIN/28 Amdt 2 - Wing Attachment Bolts

The Directive rests on a small set of operational and technical concepts, explicitly named and referenced in the text.

• Applicability as a mechanism for targeted scope. The AD specifies affected model types and serial-number ranges. The list includes Model HR 200 series (HR 200/100, HR 200/100S, HR 200/120, HR 200/120B, HR 200/160) and Model R series (R 2100, R 2100 A, R 2112, R 2120 U, R 2160 D, R 2160, R 2160i) with serial number bounds (serials 001 through 378 for many models) and special serial-number exceptions for later variants (for example R 2160 serial number 160A-06001 and subsequent, and R 2160i serial numbers 160Ai-07007 and subsequent). The precise serial ranges delimit the AD’s regulatory footprint.

• Manufacturer Service Bulletin (SB) incorporation. The technical procedure for inspections and replacements is not set out in full in the AD. Instead the AD repeatedly references "Avions Pierre Robin Service Bulletin (SB) No. 145 Revision 2" as the prescriptive technical standard for torque values and replacement/inspection procedures. It also references "NAV 96-3" for bolt replacement on certain R 2000 airframes. The AD therefore imports manufacturer and related documents into the compliance rule set by reference.

• Torque verification as the primary continuing-airworthiness control. The Directive focuses on checking the torque of front, main, and rear wing attachment bolts and on replacing main spar attachment bolts where specified. For HR 200 aircraft, the torque check also serves as the instrument for lifting a prior operational restriction: "If the torque values are correct, the previous flight limitation +3.8g and -1.52g in the 'N' category is cancelled."

• Conditional grounding and manufacturer engagement. The AD contains a clear operational condition: "If the torque values are not as specified in SB No. 145 Revision 2, before further flight, contact the aircraft manufacturer for corrective action." That language makes manufacturer intervention the mandated next step when torque tolerances are out of limits, and makes continued flight conditional on corrective action.

• Compliance timing and recurring inspections. The AD sets explicit initial deadlines tied to the AD effective date (5 June 2008), and then recurring inspection intervals (HR 200: initial within 100 hours, then at intervals not to exceed 1,000 hours; R 2000 checks: initial within 50 hours, then intervals not to exceed 100 hours). For R 2000 serials 001-298, replacement is required before further flight.

• Regulatory harmonisation. The Background states Amendment 2 aligns Australian directive requirements with "NZ CAA AD DCA/R2000/24A" and expands applicability to include Alpha Aviation manufactured R 2160i aircraft. The AD therefore functions as a harmonisation instrument across jurisdictions and producers.

These concepts combine to make the Directive a technical, model- and serial-number-targeted instrument that imposes manufacturer-referenced inspections and replacements with specified time windows and a clear risk-management mechanism (no further flight without manufacturer-authorised corrective action where torque is out of specified values). The AD does not itself restate the technical procedures, but makes compliance with SB No. 145 Revision 2 and NAV 96-3 mandatory for the affected aircraft.

The Directive directly affects owners and operators of the named aircraft models and serial-number ranges. The "Applicability" cell lists the models and serial numbers to which the AD applies; compliance language presumes an operator or responsible maintenance organisation will perform the checks and replacements. Specifically, the text names:

• Model HR 200/100, HR 200/100S, HR 200/120, HR 200/120B, and HR 200/160 aircraft, serial numbers 001 through 378.
• Model R 2100, R 2100 A, R 2112, R 2120 U, and R 2160 D aircraft, serial numbers 001 through 378.
• Model R 2160 aircraft, serial numbers 001 through 378, and serial number 160A-06001 and subsequent.
• Model R 2160i aircraft, serial numbers 001 through 378, and serial numbers 160Ai-07007 and subsequent.

Because the AD binds actions to the aircraft themselves, the primary financial and operational responsibility rests with the aircraft owner or operator who controls maintenance. The AD’s mandatory replacement and inspection actions will be carried out by licensed maintenance personnel or approved maintenance organisations, using the manufacturer documentation the AD incorporates by reference. The AD’s instruction to "contact the aircraft manufacturer for corrective action" where torque values are out of specification brings the manufacturer into the operational pathway when an out-of-spec condition is found. That contact requirement indicates that the manufacturer may be required to provide corrective instructions, parts, or approval before the aircraft may fly further.

Maintenance organisations and certificated engineers will be affected by the procedural import of Avions Pierre Robin SB No. 145 Revision 2 and NAV 96-3 as the technical standards to follow. The Directive therefore shapes the technical work and parts replacement they must undertake for compliance.

Regulators beyond CASA are tangentially implicated. The AD notes a DGAC report prompted the initial issue and that Amendment 2 aligns with the New Zealand CAA AD DCA/R2000/24A. That points to cross-jurisdictional coordination; operators and maintenance providers that operate in multiple jurisdictions will need to ensure actions satisfy both CASA and NZ CAA requirements.

Pilots and holders of the aircraft flight records are also affected functionally because the AD contains a provision that will cancel a prior flight limitation (see "Key duties and rights" below) when torque checks meet SB specifications. The cancellation of an operational limit changes permissible manoeuvres and therefore flight planning and operating envelopes for those aircraft.

The AD does not, in its text, allocate costs, nor list enforcement penalties; it prescribes technical actions and timeframes, leaving cost and implementation to owners/operators and their maintenance providers.

The Directive sets discrete duties for operators, maintainers, and the manufacturer. It does not enumerate civil penalties in the text but creates mandatory technical duties through its "Requirement" and "Compliance" fields.

Primary duties

• Perform torque checks. For Model HR 200 variants the AD requires "check the torque of the front, main, and rear wing attachment bolts, in accordance with Avions Pierre Robin Service Bulletin (SB) No. 145 Revision 2" (Requirement 1). For all Model R 2000 aircraft the AD requires checking "the torque values of the wing attachments in accordance with SB No. 145 Revision 2" (Requirement 2).

• Replace specified hardware where required. For "Model R 2000 aircraft, serial numbers 001 through 298, replace the main spar attachment bolts in accordance with SB No. 145 Revision 2 and NAV 96-3" (Requirement 2).

• Follow manufacturer instructions and notify manufacturer where specified. The AD instructs that "If the torque values are not as specified in SB No. 145 Revision 2, before further flight, contact the aircraft manufacturer for corrective action." That creates a duty to both cease further flight absent manufacturer-approved corrective action and to obtain instructions from the manufacturer before resuming flight where torque is out of specification.

• Observe compliance timing. The AD’s "Compliance" cell gives specific time windows tied to the AD effective date (5 June 2008). For HR 200 the initial check is "within 100 hours time in service after 5 June 2008" unless already done, and thereafter "at intervals not to exceed 1,000 hours time in service." For Model R 2000 serials 001-298 the replacement is required "before further flight after 5 June 2008." For all Model R 2000 the initial torque check is "within 50 hours time in service after 5 June 2008" unless already done, and thereafter at intervals "not to exceed 100 hours time in service."

Conditional rights and operational effects

• Cancellation of a flight limitation. The AD creates a conditional operational right: for Model HR 200 aircraft, "If the torque values are correct, the previous flight limitation +3.8g and -1.52g in the 'N' category is cancelled." That is, once the torque check confirms conformity with SB No. 145 Rev 2, operators regain the previously restricted load factor envelope in the N category. The AD does not restate the previous restriction or its legal provenance, but it explicitly conditions cancellation of that limitation on the torque check outcome.

• Manufacturer engagement prior to further flight in out-of-spec cases. Where torque values are not as specified, operators are required to "contact the aircraft manufacturer for corrective action" and not to fly before remedial action is taken. That places a gate on flight resumption and effectively makes manufacturer instruction a precondition for operational rights after an out‑of‑tolerance finding.

Delegation and standards

• Prescriptive technical standards are externalised. By requiring compliance "in accordance with Avions Pierre Robin Service Bulletin (SB) No. 145 Revision 2" and, for some replacements, "NAV 96-3," the AD delegates the detailed technical content to the manufacturer and NAV document, making adherence to these external standards a duty under the AD.

• No operational waiver mechanism is described in the text. The AD does not specify a process within the document for alternate methods of compliance, such as equivalent inspections or approved deviations. The text instead relies on the SB and manufacturer direction for corrective action when required.

In sum, the AD imposes maintenance and inspection duties with explicit timing, conditions further flight on corrective action where torque is out of specification, and provides a conditional operational benefit (lifting a flight limitation) when torque values meet SB specifications. The AD commands adherence to manufacturer-provided technical methods, but it does not contain text within this document that outlines enforcement, alternate compliance pathways, or a formal waiver mechanism.

The Directive text itself does not state civil or criminal penalties, nor does it provide an enforcement procedure or specify a fines schedule. The AD is issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and is signed by "David Villiers, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority" (document footer dated 16 April 2008), indicating the issuing regulatory authority. The AD’s enforceability therefore derives from its authority as an AD issued by that regulator; the document itself does not set out penalty provisions.

What the AD does specify that is relevant to enforcement:

• Mandatory actions and timing are specified. The AD sets out explicit requirements and compliance windows: initial torque checks, replacement of bolts for certain serial-numbered airframes, and recurring inspection intervals. Those prescriptive requirements establish clear expectations that can be enforced by aviation safety regulators through their usual powers to require or verify compliance with ADs.

• Immediate operational consequences where non-compliance is found. The AD explicitly requires that "If the torque values are not as specified in SB No. 145 Revision 2, before further flight, contact the aircraft manufacturer for corrective action." That instruction carries an implicit operational sanction: aircraft found out of tolerance cannot be legally flown further under the terms of this Directive until manufacturer-approved corrective action is performed. The AD thereby creates an operational "do not fly" condition unless remediated, which aviation regulators often enforce through grounding or directives.

• Cross-reference to other jurisdictions. The AD notes alignment with "NZ CAA AD DCA/R2000/24A" and references actions arising from a DGAC report. Cross-jurisdictional alignment can affect enforcement in those jurisdictions where local aviation regulators adopt similar directives; however, this AD text does not specify enforcement mechanisms in either jurisdiction.

Absence of explicit penalties

• No monetary penalties, suspension regimes, or penalty schedules are contained in the AD text. The document does not specify how CASA or other enforcement bodies would penalise operators for failure to comply or what administrative processes would be used.

Practical implication for operators and maintainers

• Because the AD imposes mandatory technical duties and creates "no-fly" conditions in out-of-spec cases, enforcement will be exercised through standard aviation safety channels: maintenance audits, airworthiness inspections, and regulatory oversight. Although the AD itself does not list penalties, non-compliance with an AD issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is typically actionable under aviation safety legislation and regulatory frameworks; those frameworks are not described in the AD text and therefore are not detailed here.

In short, the AD sets mandatory actions and a conditional operational prohibition but does not set out penalties or enforcement procedures in the text. Enforcement responsibility rests with the issuing authority implicit in the signature block, but operators will need to refer to the broader regulatory framework administered by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for detailed enforcement mechanisms and penalties outside the AD itself.

The Directive expressly references and aligns with external regulatory and technical documents; those references create interactions rather than standalone regulation.

• Incorporation by reference of manufacturer service bulletin. The AD requires actions "in accordance with Avions Pierre Robin Service Bulletin (SB) No. 145 Revision 2." That means the technical procedures, torque values and possibly parts lists are not contained in the AD text but are to be performed per the manufacturer’s SB. The operational effect is that compliance with the AD necessarily requires compliance with the referenced SB; the two documents operate together to form the compliance standard.

• Interaction with NAV 96-3. For the replacement of the main spar attachment bolts on certain Model R 2000 aircraft, the AD requires replacement "in accordance with SB No. 145 Revision 2 and NAV 96-3." NAV 96-3 is therefore another technical document incorporated into the compliance standard for those replacement actions.

• Cross-jurisdictional alignment. The Background states Amendment 2 "is issued to align this Directive with NZ CAA AD DCA/R2000/24A." The AD contains a Note that "NZ CAA AD DCA/R2000/24A refers." That indicates the AD is functionally harmonising technical requirements across Australian and New Zealand regulatory regimes for the affected models. Operators who operate in both jurisdictions must ensure actions satisfy both ADs. The AD itself does not alter the NZ CAA AD, but alignment reduces the potential for conflicting technical requirements.

• Relationship to operational limitations and airworthiness. The AD interacts with aircraft operating limitations by providing that, for Model HR 200, "If the torque values are correct, the previous flight limitation +3.8g and -1.52g in the 'N' category is cancelled." Thus the AD changes the permissible operational envelope for aircraft contingent on an inspection outcome. That is an interaction between maintenance compliance and airworthiness/operational law.

• Manufacturer involvement and corrective action. The AD requires operators to "contact the aircraft manufacturer for corrective action" where torque values are not as specified. This creates an interaction between operator obligations under the AD and manufacturer responsibilities to provide corrective instructions or parts per their continuing airworthiness obligations. The AD therefore channels certain remedial interactions through the manufacturer rather than prescribing all possible remedial actions within the AD text.

• Trigger from foreign regulatory incident. The AD was prompted by "a report by the French airworthiness authority, the DGAC, of the in-flight failure of the wing attachments of a Robin R2160 aircraft." That shows a transnational regulatory interaction: a foreign authority’s incident report prompted this domestic AD, illustrating how international safety events can trigger domestic regulatory action. The AD aligns Australian requirements with both the manufacturer’s SB and a New Zealand AD in response to that incident.

What the AD does not do

• The AD does not repeal or amend other statutes or provide conflict-resolution language with other regulatory instruments beyond the alignment references. It does not provide alternate methods of compliance or a process for seeking exemptions within the text; nor does it state how its requirements fit into the broader airworthiness regulatory code. Operators must therefore interpret this AD in the context of the broader regulatory framework administered by CASA and relevant civil aviation statutes and regulations.

In practice, compliance with the AD will require operators and maintenance organisations to coordinate actions across manufacturer guidance and potentially other civil aviation requirements, ensuring that the work performed to meet the AD also addresses any jurisdictional differences with other ADs such as the referenced NZ CAA AD.

The AD document records its amendment status, effective date, and a brief narrative history of why and how the AD evolved.

• AD identification and amendment. The document is titled "AD/ROBIN/28 Amdt 2" and dated 6/2008. The footer shows the signing officer as David Villiers, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, on 16 April 2008. The AD further states "This Amendment becomes effective on 5 June 2008."

• Initial issue and precipitating incident. The Background describes the initial issue of the directive as following "a report by the French airworthiness authority, the DGAC, of the in‑flight failure of the wing attachments of a Robin R2160 aircraft." That incident prompted the initial AD and emergency or temporary flight restrictions captured in Requirement 2.

• Amendment 1. The Background records that "Amendment 1 provided for removal of the flight restriction once the wing attachment hardware is replaced." It states that the torque check and inspection requirements subsequent to replacement were intended "to ensure the continuing airworthiness of the wing attachment hardware." That indicates the first amendment transitioned from a short-term operational restriction to a continuing monitoring regime tied to replacement and torque checks.

• Amendment 2 (this document). The Background states "Amendment 2 is issued to align this Directive with NZ CAA AD DCA/R2000/24A. Alpha Aviation manufactured Model R 2160i aircraft are included in applicability." The current document is therefore an alignment and scope-expansion amendment. The effective date and signature indicate the administrative finalisation of Amendment 2.

• Note on cross-reference. The AD also includes a Note that "NZ CAA AD DCA/R2000/24A refers." That reference ties Amendment 2 to the New Zealand action and explains the alignment purpose recorded in the Background.

Chronology distilled from the document

1. Initial AD issued after DGAC report of in-flight wing attachment failure on a Robin R2160 aircraft.
2. Amendment 1 issued to remove an interim flight restriction once wing attachment hardware was replaced, and to add torque check/inspection requirements to ensure continuing airworthiness.
3. Amendment 2 (this instrument) issued to align Australian requirements with the NZ CAA AD DCA/R2000/24A and to include Alpha Aviation manufactured Model R 2160i in the applicability list.
4. AD Amdt 2 becomes effective 5 June 2008; signed 16 April 2008 by a CASA delegate.

The AD’s text therefore contains a brief but explicit history: incident-driven initial AD; Amendment 1 converting an interim restriction into a maintenance/inspection regime post-replacement; Amendment 2 harmonising with New Zealand and expanding applicability to include Alpha Aviation produced R 2160i aircraft.

The text of AD/ROBIN/28 Amdt 2 contains no litigation history and does not reference any legal proceedings. The document records the factual trigger for regulatory action (a DGAC report of an in‑flight failure) and notes alignment with a New Zealand CAA AD, but it does not describe any litigation brought against the manufacturer, operators, or the regulator, nor does it reference court decisions or administrative appeals.

What is explicit in the document

• No cases or disputes are mentioned. The AD’s Background and Requirements focus on safety measures and harmonisation with external regulatory documents; there is no mention of litigation, contested enforcement actions, or judicial review in this AD text.

• No internal appeal or variance process is described in the document. The AD does not set out within its text a procedure to seek an approved alternative method of compliance or an exemption from the Directive. Operators seeking a legal remedy or administrative review would need to consult the broader regulatory framework administered by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for mechanisms outside this AD document. Those broader mechanisms are not described in the AD itself.

Implications for research and risk assessment

• Absence of litigation references does not imply absence of potential legal issues. The AD creates operational conditions and mandatory technical duties which, in other contexts, can give rise to enforcement action or disputes about findings of non-compliance or the sufficiency of corrective action. The AD text does not describe how such disputes would be resolved.

• For practitioners seeking litigation or adjudicative precedent related to this AD, the AD text provides no leads: no referenced cases, no enforcement history, no sanctions described. Any litigation history or enforcement actions would need to be sought from CASA records, administrative decisions, or court dockets separate from this Directive text.

In sum, the Directive contains no litigation history or judicial references; it is an administrative safety instrument setting maintenance and inspection obligations without detailing dispute-resolution or enforcement adjudication within this text.

Several potential pitfalls or points of confusion arise from the AD’s wording, serial-number formatting, and the way compliance tasks are distributed across models. These are matters that operators, maintenance organisations and compliance officers should note closely.

• Pay attention to precise applicability and serial-number ranges. The AD lists multiple models and serial-number ranges, including later-production exceptions such as "serial number 160A-06001 and subsequent" and "serial numbers 160Ai-07007 and subsequent" for R 2160 and R 2160i respectively. Misreading these ranges or overlooking the "and subsequent" phrasing could lead to an incorrect determination of whether an aircraft is covered. Verify exact serial-number format on the aircraft logbooks and production data plates to match the AD’s applicability.

• Different actions for different models and serials. The AD contains multiple, model-specific requirements. For Model HR 200 aircraft the obligation is a torque check that, if compliant, cancels a prior flight limitation. For Model R 2000 serials 001-298 the AD requires bolt replacement "in accordance with SB No. 145 Revision 2 and NAV 96-3" before further flight, while "all Model R 2000 aircraft" require the torque-check procedure. Treat each model/serial assessment separately rather than applying an action across models inadvertently.

• Compliance deadlines are anchored to the effective date. The AD sets initial compliance deadlines measured from "5 June 2008." For example, HR 200 initial checks were "within 100 hours time in service after 5 June 2008" and R 2000 initial torque checks "within 50 hours time in service after 5 June 2008." Operators that miscalculate these windows could be out of compliance. Although these dates are historical, the structure,deadlines measured from the AD effective date and recurring inspection intervals,illustrates that contemporary operators must map AD effective dates to their aircraft time-in-service to establish correct windows.

• The AD does not reproduce torque values or technical procedures. The AD makes SB No. 145 Revision 2 the prescriptive technical standard. Operators must obtain that Service Bulletin (and NAV 96-3 where applicable) to know the torque values and procedural steps. Assuming the technical details from memory or an older SB may result in using incorrect torque specifications. The AD’s instruction "in accordance with SB No. 145 Revision 2" requires that the specified revision, not an earlier or later revision, be followed.

• Manufacturer contact is mandatory for out-of-spec conditions. The AD requires that "before further flight, contact the aircraft manufacturer for corrective action" if torque values are not as specified. Practically, that means an operator cannot self-authorise a repair path without the manufacturer’s corrective action. This can create operational downtime while awaiting manufacturer direction or parts.

• Cancellation of the flight limitation is conditional and specific. For Model HR 200 the AD states that "If the torque values are correct, the previous flight limitation +3.8g and -1.52g in the 'N' category is cancelled." Operators should not assume cancellation applies to other models or that it applies automatically without documented torque checks per SB No. 145 Rev 2.

• Note referencing other authorities. The AD includes "Note: NZ CAA AD DCA/R2000/24A refers." Operators may need to consult the NZAD text for any differences or supplemental requirements. The AD does not reproduce the NZ text, so regulatory alignment or divergence must be checked directly.

• Serial-number edge cases. The Applicability text shows certain series with "serial numbers 001 through 378" for multiple models and then lists specific "and subsequent" serial numbers for later variants. Determining whether an aircraft with a nonstandard or re-serialised plate falls within the AD requires careful verification with manufacturer production records.

• Record-keeping and evidence of compliance. The AD requires recurring inspections at stated intervals (1,000 hours TIS for HR 200 after initial, 100 hours TIS intervals for R 2000 checks). Practical compliance requires maintenance records that clearly reference the AD and the applicable SB revision to evidence compliance. The AD does not itself state what documentary form meets that evidentiary need.

• No alternate compliance route described. The AD does not set out a formal alternative method of compliance (AMOC) procedure in the text. If an operator believes an alternate inspection method is appropriate, the AD provides no internal pathway to acceptance; operators will need to rely on CASA’s general processes outside the AD, which are not described in this document.

These "gotchas" are concrete, document-grounded risks: serial-number misclassification, failure to use the specified SB revision, misunderstanding which models get replacement versus torque-check-only regimes, and the manufacturer contact gate for out-of-spec findings. Each of these can cause non-compliance or operational delays if overlooked.

The AD provides a clear, model-specific compliance path tied to the manufacturer's Service Bulletin and NAV document. Below is a stepwise compliance checklist derived directly from the Directive text, organised by model/serial grouping and timing.

Step 0 , Confirm applicability

• Verify the aircraft model and serial number against the "Applicability" text: HR 200/100, HR 200/100S, HR 200/120, HR 200/120B, HR 200/160 (serials 001-378); R 2100, R 2100 A, R 2112, R 2120 U, R 2160 D (serials 001-378); R 2160 (serials 001-378 and serial number 160A‑06001 and subsequent); R 2160i (serials 001-378 and serial numbers 160Ai‑07007 and subsequent). Only aircraft within these identified ranges are subject to the AD as written.

Step 1 , Obtain referenced documents

• Obtain Avions Pierre Robin Service Bulletin No. 145 Revision 2 and NAV 96-3. The AD directs all technical procedures and torque values to these documents. Do not rely on older or different revisions unless the manufacturer or CASA expressly authorises an alternative.

Step 2 , Model HR 200 actions (Requirement 1)

• Check the torque of the front, main, and rear wing attachment bolts "in accordance with SB No. 145 Revision 2."
• Compliance timing: Unless already accomplished, perform this initial check "within 100 hours time in service after 5 June 2008." Thereafter, perform torque checks "at intervals not to exceed 1,000 hours time in service."
• If torque values are as specified in SB No. 145 Revision 2, record that finding and note that "the previous flight limitation +3.8g and -1.52g in the 'N' category is cancelled" for this aircraft in the aircraft maintenance and operational records.
• If torque values are not as specified, do not permit further flight "before further flight" and "contact the aircraft manufacturer for corrective action." Obtain manufacturer instructions and perform corrective actions before returning the aircraft to service.

Step 3 , Model R 2000 actions (Requirement 2)

• For Model R 2000 aircraft serial numbers 001 through 298:
  • Replace the main spar attachment bolts "in accordance with SB No. 145 Revision 2 and NAV 96-3" prior to further flight. Compliance timing is "Unless already accomplished, before further flight after 5 June 2008."
• For all Model R 2000 aircraft:
  • Check torque values of the wing attachments "in accordance with SB No. 145 Revision 2."
  • Compliance timing for the torque check: "Unless the initial check is already accomplished, within 50 hours time in service after 5 June 2008." Thereafter, perform these checks "at intervals not to exceed 100 hours time in service."
• If torque values are not as specified, do not permit further flight and contact the manufacturer for corrective action "before further flight."

Step 4 , Documentation and records

• Record the work performed, reference AD/ROBIN/28 Amdt 2, cite SB No. 145 Revision 2 and NAV 96-3 as applicable, and include torque values found and actions performed. Retain manufacturer communications about corrective actions if any torque values were out of specification. Even though the AD text does not specify an exact record format, the maintenance and flight release records should document compliance clearly.

Step 5 , Operational implications

• For HR 200 aircraft where torque checks meet SB values, update the aircraft operating limitations to reflect the cancellation of the previous flight limitation "+3.8g and -1.52g in the 'N' category." Ensure pilots and flight planners are informed and operational documentation reflects the new envelope.

Step 6 , Manufacturer contact and remedial work

• Where torque checks reveal values not as specified, contact the manufacturer as required by the AD and implement any manufacturer-prescribed corrective action prior to further flight. Maintain records of manufacturer advisories, parts installed, and approvals to return to service.

Step 7 , Recurrence and tracking

• Implement a maintenance tracking system to schedule recurring torque checks at the intervals specified (HR 200: not to exceed 1,000 hours TIS after initial; R 2000: not to exceed 100 hours TIS after initial check), and to ensure that any required bolt replacements are completed for the serial-numbered aircraft to which they apply.

Step 8 , Cross-check with other ADs and jurisdictions

• Note the AD’s reference to NZ CAA AD DCA/R2000/24A and the alignment objective of Amendment 2. Operators with cross‑jurisdictional exposure should obtain and follow any additional or differing requirements in the NZ AD to ensure full compliance across operating territories.

Practical compliance notes

• Use the specified SB revision. The AD requires SB No. 145 Revision 2 specifically. Confirm that the SB you have is Revision 2 and that NAV 96-3 is the correct NAV document referenced.

• Be prepared for grounding while awaiting manufacturer corrective action. The AD’s "before further flight" language makes return to flight conditional on corrective action for out-of-spec findings. Plan maintenance and operations scheduling accordingly.

• Ensure maintenance staff are aware of the cancellation condition for HR 200 flight limits. Only record the cancellation when the torque check conforms to SB requirements and document that as maintenance action.

• Verify serial numbers carefully. Distinguish between models that require replacement and those that require only torque checks. Serial-number misidentification is a common operational error with AD applicability.

Following this checklist will implement the AD’s requirements as written. The AD does not itself specify alternate compliance processes within the document, so any alternative methods or waivers must be pursued through CASA’s general administrative processes outside the text of this AD.