AD/ROBIN/40 Amdt 1 - Nose Landing Gear Bracket

The AD centres on a small set of interconnected technical and administrative concepts. These are the affected component, the prescribed compliance regime, the normative reference, the conditional repair requirement, and the delineation of applicability.

• Affected component and failure mode: The AD addresses cracking of "the weld securing the nose wheel steering bracket to the nose landing gear leg" (Background). The failure mode is welding crack growth on the nose landing gear bracket assembly.

• Applicability and scope: Applicability is stated by model and serial-number ranges. The AD applies to 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 numbers 160A-06001 and subsequent; and Model R 2160i aircraft, serial numbers 001 through 378 and serial numbers 160Ai-07007 and subsequent (Applicability). Amendment 1 removes references to HR 200 types that are now covered by EASA AD 2010-0231 (Background).

• Normative reference: The AD makes SB No. 101 Revision 3 "the" procedural document to be followed (Requirement). All inspections, crack measurement, and repair options are to be accomplished in accordance with SB No. 101 Rev 3; the AD effectively makes that service bulletin mandatory for the affected aircraft under the AD.

• Compliance windows and periodicity: The Compliance section sets out initial compliance windows tied to a benchmark date (17 January 2008) and establishes recurring inspection intervals that differ by support-plate width. For support plates with width less than 84 mm the initial inspection is within 100 hours time in service after 17 January 2008 and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours if no cracking is found. For support plates with width equal to 84 mm the initial inspection is within 500 hours after 17 January 2008 and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 hours if no cracking is found. Where cracks are detected, the AD requires determining crack dimensions per SB No. 101 Rev 3 and then moving to one of two pathways: (a) if cracks are within allowable criteria in SB No. 101 Rev 3, then inspect at intervals not to exceed 25 hours time in service; or (b) if cracks are outside allowable criteria in SB No. 101 Rev 3, accomplish an approved manufacturer repair before further flight (Compliance).

• Repair requirement and approval path: The AD does not specify repair detail itself; it requires "an approved manufacturer repair, in accordance with SB No. 101 Revision 3" for cracks outside allowable criteria (Compliance). The AD therefore ties the allowable corrective action to an approved repair method from the manufacturer as described in the service bulletin.

• Cross-reference to other authority actions: The Background notes that this AD was issued in response to a related NZ CAA Directive (NZ CAA AD DCA/R2000/15A) and that Amendment 1 follows EASA actions cancelling an earlier DGAC AD and issuing EASA AD 2010-0231. The AD records that requirements were previously contained in AD/ROBIN/7 Amdt 2 (Background).

Each of these concepts defines responsibilities and the route of compliance: operators must inspect within defined windows; documentation and decisions about crack acceptance and repair follow SB No. 101 Rev 3; if limits are exceeded the aircraft must be repaired with an approved manufacturer repair before further flight. The AD converts a manufacturer service advisory into a mandatory regulatory action for the listed aircraft by reference.

The AD designates responsibilities primarily for aircraft owners and operators of the listed Robin models and serial numbers, maintenance organisations that perform inspections and repairs on those types, the manufacturer as the source of the corrective procedure, and the regulator as the issuing authority.

• Owners and operators: By applying to specific aircraft models and serial numbers (Applicability), the AD affects the registered owners and operators of those aircraft. The obligations are operational: owners/operators must ensure that the mandated inspections are carried out within the stated time windows ("Within 100 hours time in service after 17 January 2008" for plates <84 mm; "Within 500 hours time in service after 17 January 2008" for plates =84 mm) and that, where necessary, the aircraft are repaired per the AD before further flight (Compliance; Requirement). The AD makes these actions compulsory for the affected aircraft.

• Maintenance organisations and personnel: The AD requires inspections to be "in accordance with Avions Pierre Robin Service Bulletin No. 101 Revision 3" (Requirement). Maintenance organisations or licensed engineers carrying out the inspections must therefore have access to SB No. 101 Rev 3 and the competence to measure crack dimensions per that SB and to perform or arrange for "approved manufacturer repair" procedures when required. The AD draws the normative technical procedure away from general maintenance practice into a specified service bulletin.

• Manufacturer and approval authorities: The AD relies on the manufacturer’s service bulletin as the prescriptive document and on manufacturer-approved repairs as the corrective path for defects outside the allowable criteria (Requirement). The manufacturer therefore controls the technical content of inspections and the repair design that the AD requires to be used where cracks exceed the allowable criteria in SB No. 101 Rev 3.

• The regulator and its delegates: The document is a CASA Airworthiness Directive, issued and signed by Mike Higgins, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (signature block). CASA is the decision-maker issuing the AD and setting the effective date ("This Airworthiness Directive becomes effective on 19 November 2010."). The AD also references actions by other regulators (NZ CAA, EASA) in the Background; those references indicate coordination with or deference to other authorities about related models or serial ranges.

• Aircraft types removed from the AD: Amendment 1 removes HR 200 variants previously included; those HR 200 models are now covered by EASA AD 2010-0231 according to the Background. Operators of those HR 200 models must instead follow the EASA AD as the relevant regulatory instrument (Background).

In practical terms the primary economic and operational effects fall on owners/operators and maintenance providers. Repairs and increased inspection frequency when cracks are found will require labour, parts, downtime and possibly replacement components. Because the AD requires repairs "approved" by the manufacturer, owners/operators seeking alternative repair solutions will need manufacturer or regulator approval to deviate from the prescriptive repairs. The AD does not itself state which party pays for the inspection or repair costs; the directive assigns the obligation to perform the action to owners/operators (Compliance; Requirement), so they bear direct costs of compliance unless alternative commercial arrangements exist.

This AD imposes mandatory duties on owners/operators and maintenance providers and gives limited delegated decision space to the manufacturer via its service bulletin and approved repair processes. The text sets out required actions, timelines, and the normative technical document to be followed.

Duties:

• Perform inspections in accordance with the Avions Pierre Robin Service Bulletin No. 101 Revision 3. The Requirement clause makes SB No. 101 Rev 3 the operative procedural document for inspection, measurement and repair decisions (Requirement).

• Meet initial compliance windows tied to 17 January 2008. For support plates with width less than 84 mm, inspections must be accomplished "Within 100 hours time in service after 17 January 2008, unless already accomplished within the last 100 hours time in service" (Compliance). For plates with width equal to 84 mm, inspections must be accomplished "Within 500 hours time in service after 17 January 2008, unless already accomplished within the last 500 hours time in service" (Compliance). The AD further requires that if no cracking is detected, inspections be repeated at intervals not to exceed the same 100 or 500 hours respectively (Compliance).

• If cracks are detected, determine crack dimensions in accordance with SB No. 101 Rev 3 (Compliance). This creates a measurement and assessment duty tied to the service bulletin.

• Apply prescribed follow-up intervals or corrective actions: if cracks are within the allowable criteria of SB No. 101 Rev 3, inspect at intervals not to exceed 25 hours time in service (Compliance). If cracks are outside the allowable criteria of SB No. 101 Rev 3, then "before further flight, accomplish an approved manufacturer repair, in accordance with SB No. 101 Revision 3" (Compliance). This is a grounding-until-repaired requirement for defects outside allowable limits.

• Employ approved manufacturer repair methods for defects outside allowable criteria (Compliance). The AD does not describe alternative repair approvals, it requires an approved manufacturer repair "in accordance with SB No. 101 Revision 3".

Rights and decision points:

• The AD gives decision authority on measurement criteria and allowable limits to the content of SB No. 101 Rev 3. The AD requires determinations "in accordance with SB No. 101 Revision 3" (Compliance). Owners/operators therefore rely on the service bulletin’s definitions to determine whether a crack is within allowable criteria and the consequent inspection cadence or whether a repair is mandatory prior to flight.

• The AD establishes that if cracks are within allowable criteria, continued operation is permitted subject to a heightened inspection frequency (25 hours). This creates a conditional right to operate while under a more frequent inspection regime, rather than an unconditional grounding.

• The AD identifies the need for an "approved manufacturer repair". The AD does not set out the approval process itself; the right to authorise a repair method appears to lie with the manufacturer (whose repair must be "approved") or with the body that approves manufacturer repairs. The text does not define who explicitly grants such approval within CASA or the manufacturer, only that repairs must be approved and in accordance with SB No. 101 Rev 3.

• The AD modifies earlier instruments: Amendment 1 removes reference to HR 200 variants previously included in AD/ROBIN/7 Amdt 2 and notes that those variants are covered by EASA AD 2010-0231 (Background). That transfer of regulatory coverage establishes the right of EASA to regulate those models and relieves CASA’s AD of coverage for that subset.

Implementation consequences of these duties:

• The AD transforms a manufacturer service bulletin into a mandatory regulatory requirement for listed aircraft. Compliance therefore requires access to SB No. 101 Rev 3, resources to carry out inspections and repairs, and potentially liaison with the manufacturer for repair approvals. The AD sets tight follow-up intervals if any cracking is found (25 hours), raising the probability of frequent grounding or maintenance action for affected aircraft until the crack is stabilised or repaired according to the SB.

• The AD does not include any express carve-outs, waivers or alternate means of compliance within its text. The prescriptive linkage to SB No. 101 Rev 3 means any deviation from the prescribed measurements and repairs must be achieved by seeking and obtaining a separate approval outside the AD text; the AD does not itself outline such a process.

The AD text supplied does not expressly state criminal, civil, or administrative penalties for non-compliance, nor does it set out an enforcement process within the directive text itself. The document establishes mandatory technical requirements and an effective date ("This Airworthiness Directive becomes effective on 19 November 2010") and is issued under the authority of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (signed by Mike Higgins, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority), which implicitly makes the AD a regulatory instrument. The text, however, contains no express penalty provision or enforcement procedure.

What the AD does provide that relates to enforcement is the prescriptive nature of the requirements: inspections and repairs "in accordance with Avions Pierre Robin Service Bulletin No. 101 Revision 3" must be accomplished within the stated timeframes, and aircraft with cracks outside allowable criteria must receive an approved manufacturer repair "before further flight" (Requirement; Compliance). From an operational perspective, this creates a clear compliance obligation: failure to perform the required inspections and to prevent flight with unapproved defects would be inconsistent with the AD’s instructions.

Because the AD itself does not set out enforcement or penalty mechanisms, parties must look to the broader regulatory regime under which CASA issues ADs for enforcement measures and sanctions; however, those measures are not stated in this AD text. The Background notes interaction with other authorities (NZ CAA and EASA) but does not describe enforcement mechanisms employed by those authorities in relation to this AD or parallel instruments (Background).

Practical enforcement implications implicit in the AD text:

• The directive requires a mandatory course of technical action to maintain airworthiness for the specified models and serial numbers; regulators typically treat failure to comply with ADs as non-compliance with airworthiness requirements, but the AD itself here does not list specific sanctions or administrative remedies.

• The AD makes continuing airworthiness contingent on the inspections and repairs it mandates. By requiring that an approved manufacturer repair be completed before further flight when cracks are outside allowable dimensions, the AD creates a de facto operational enforcement point: operators who do not perform such repairs cannot,in the terms of the AD,lawfully return the affected aircraft to flight. The AD text does not itself state the downstream regulatory consequences for non-compliance, for example, certificate suspension, fines or prohibition notices.

• The instrument does not describe monitoring or reporting obligations. It requires determinations and actions "in accordance with SB No. 101 Revision 3", but it does not set out a requirement to notify CASA of findings or repairs in the text provided.

Because the AD does not expressly state enforcement provisions, users of this document should refer to the enabling legislation and CASA regulatory framework for the precise enforcement and penalty mechanisms that apply to failure to comply with ADs. The AD itself provides the technical obligations and effective date but not the sanctions in its text.

The AD situates itself in a regulatory network by reference to related directives and to manufacturer documentation. It records cross-jurisdictional interactions and replacement of previous directives.

• Cross-reference to New Zealand CAA: The Requirement clause includes a note: "Note: NZ CAA AD DCA/R2000/15A refers." This signals that a related airworthiness directive exists or existed in New Zealand and that the CASA AD acknowledges that parallel authority. The Background explains the AD "was issued in response to the related NZ CAA Directive which was issued as a result of Alpha Aviation becoming the Type Certificate holder for Model HR 200 and Model R 2000 series aircraft." The AD therefore recognises regulatory activity in New Zealand concerning similar types (Requirement; Background).

• Interaction with EASA and DGAC history: The Background states that Amendment 1 was raised "as a result of EASA cancelling DGAC AD F-1983-206(A)R3 and issuing EASA AD 2010-0231." Amendment 1 removes references to HR 200 variants that are now covered by EASA AD 2010-0231. This indicates that CASA’s AD has been aligned to avoid duplicative or conflicting coverage where EASA now regulates certain models. It shows an international regulatory coordination: where one authority (EASA) has issued an AD covering particular models, CASA has removed those models from its AD's applicability (Background).

• Replacement of prior CASA AD: The Background specifies that the requirements of this Directive "were previously contained in AD/ROBIN/7 Amdt 2." Amendment 1 therefore operates as a successor regulatory instrument replacing or consolidating obligations previously set out in an earlier CASA AD. The text indicates an administrative amendment process within CASA's AD regime.

• Role of manufacturer service bulletins: The AD makes the Avions Pierre Robin Service Bulletin No. 101 Revision 3 the normative technical instrument for inspections, measurement criteria and repair instructions (Requirement). By doing this, the AD converts a manufacturer document,normally advisory,into the regulatory standard for the listed aircraft. The AD does not incorporate other standards or grant alternative means of compliance within its text; those would have to be handled outside the AD's text via the broader regulatory regime or a request for alternative means and methods.

• Implicit reliance on airworthiness regulatory framework: While the AD text does not itself cite the enabling statute or regulations under which CASA issues ADs, the instrument operates as a technical regulatory directive within the CASA regime. The AD does not specify how it interacts procedurally with certificates of airworthiness, operating certificates, or maintenance records, but by imposing mandatory inspections and repairs it will sit alongside other airworthiness obligations enforced by CASA under their broader legal framework. The AD’s text does not set out those mechanisms; it primarily establishes the technical requirements.

• No explicit interplay with commercial law or contract law: The AD does not mention contractual obligations between owners and third parties, insurance, or the allocation of costs between lessee and lessor. The AD imposes the technical duty on the aircraft as an airworthiness matter; allocation of costs for compliance would be a matter for contracts and commercial arrangements and is not addressed in the AD text.

In summary, the AD explicitly references parallel actions by the NZ CAA and EASA and replaces previous CASA AD material, and it transforms a manufacturer service bulletin into the enforceable technical standard for the listed aircraft within CASA’s regulatory remit. The AD does not, in its text, set out the procedural interactions with certificates, penalties, or alternative means of compliance; those interactions lie in the broader regulatory structure outside the AD text provided.

The document itself is titled "AD/ROBIN/40 Amdt 1" which indicates it is Amendment 1 to AD/ROBIN/40. The background text provides the relevant historical points recorded in the AD.

• Prior instrument: The Background reports that "The requirements of this Directive were previously contained in AD/ROBIN/7 Amdt 2." That statement locates the antecedent CASA action: AD/ROBIN/7 Amdt 2 was the repository of the requirements now in AD/ROBIN/40 Amdt 1. The AD therefore consolidates or supersedes prior text.

• Rationale for the amendment: Amendment 1 "has been raised as a result of EASA cancelling DGAC AD F-1983-206(A)R3 and issuing EASA AD 2010-0231." The Background records that this amendment "removes reference to being applicable to Model HR 200/100, HR 200/100S, HR 200/120, HR 200/120B, and HR 200/160 aircraft, serial numbers 001 through 378, which are now covered by EASA AD 2010-0231." Thus Amendment 1 narrowed the applicability by excluding those HR 200 series aircraft and aligning CASA's AD with EASA's coverage (Background).

• Effective dates and signature: The AD records an effective date for the amended directive: "This Airworthiness Directive becomes effective on 19 November 2010." The signature block shows "Mike Higgins, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority" with a signing date of 9 November 2010. The AD is therefore dated 9 November and effective 19 November 2010 (signature block; Compliance).

• Continuity of compliance times: The Compliance section explicitly states that "Compliance times remain unchanged from 17 January 2008." That indicates that the amendment did not alter the timing of inspection windows relative to the earlier AD or initial issuance; the amendment focused on applicability rather than changing the prescribed compliance windows.

• Relationship with international ADs: The Background documents the international regulatory sequencing , the cancellation of a DGAC AD and the issuance of an EASA AD prompted CASA to amend its AD to remove overlapping HR 200 coverage. The AD also notes the related NZ CAA directive DCA/R2000/15A, indicating that these issues have been addressed across multiple jurisdictions and that CASA’s AD history has been shaped by international AD developments.

• Prior content retained: While Amendment 1 removed HR 200 references, the AD retains the core requirements for the R-series models and serial numbers specified in the Applicability. The procedural content , acting in accordance with SB No. 101 Rev 3, inspection intervals per plate width, and repair requirements , remains operative and unchanged in timing from 17 January 2008 (Requirement; Compliance). The AD therefore appears to be an amendment of applicability and alignment rather than a substantive technical change to the inspection and repair requirements.

The AD text supplied does not give a detailed amendment log beyond the statements above. There are no other amendment numbers or dates recorded in the provided excerpt. For a full administrative trail one would need to consult CASA’s AD repository and the antecedent AD/ROBIN/7 Amdt 2 and any superseded ADs, but those documents are not part of the supplied text. The supplied AD records that the present instrument is Amendment 1 and documents the effective date and reason for the amendment as relating to EASA and DGAC developments.

The text of AD/ROBIN/40 Amdt 1 does not contain any references to litigation, judicial review, or case law. It records technical facts, compliance requirements, cross-references to other airworthiness directives (NZ CAA and EASA), and the signature of the CASA delegate, but no litigation history is included in the provided material.

Observations based on the absence of litigation references in the AD:

• The AD does not reference disputes, enforcement actions, or court decisions arising from the AD or its antecedents. It contains only technical and administrative materials relevant to compliance.

• The AD mandates the use of Avions Pierre Robin Service Bulletin No. 101 Revision 3 and requires "approved manufacturer repair" where cracks exceed allowable criteria. The text does not set out any dispute-resolution route for disagreements about measurements, allowable criteria, or repair approvals. The presence of a prescriptive technical standard (SB No. 101 Rev 3) and reference to an "approved manufacturer repair" may create factual disputes in practice (for example, disputes over whether a crack is within allowable criteria or whether a proposed repair meets the "approved manufacturer repair" requirement), but the AD text itself does not document any litigation that has arisen from such disputes.

• Because Amendment 1 removes HR 200 variants from the AD in deference to an EASA AD, jurisdictional or regulatory coordination issues might conceivably be a source of contention, but the AD text offers no recounting of judicial or administrative proceedings related to that choice.

• The AD’s absence of litigation history in its text does not mean disputes could not be or have not been brought in another forum; it simply means the AD document itself does not include any litigation references. Practitioners seeking to know whether the AD has been the subject of legal proceedings should consult relevant case law databases or regulatory enforcement records outside the supplied text.

In short, the supplied AD contains no litigation history and does not record any disputes, appeals, or judicial decisions arising from this AD or prior ADs in the AD/ROBIN series. The AD is a technical regulatory instrument and confines itself to technical requirements, effective dates, and administrative background.

This section highlights specific traps for practitioners and operators that arise from the text of the AD itself. They are grounded in the AD’s language and structure.

• Compliance windows reference a past benchmark date (17 January 2008): The Compliance section says "Compliance times remain unchanged from 17 January 2008." Then it prescribes initial inspections "Within 100 hours time in service after 17 January 2008" or "Within 500 hours time in service after 17 January 2008". Because the AD’s effective date is 19 November 2010, operators must recognise that the AD’s compliance timetable is anchored to an earlier date; as written, if an operator had not performed the initial inspection since 17 January 2008 they are still bound to perform the inspection within the stated hours-in-service trigger. Practically, operators must interpret whether "within 100 hours time in service after 17 January 2008" means that an aircraft that has accrued many hours since that date must perform the inspection at the next available maintenance opportunity or immediately. The AD text does not provide a catch-all instruction for late compliance; therefore operators should be careful to ensure they have accomplished the inspection if they fell behind the original date.

• Support-plate width is a determinative variable: The inspection intervals and initial compliance times depend on the support plate width being less than 84 mm or equal to 84 mm. Operators must know the exact width of the support plates fitted to their aircraft. The AD does not set out how to determine whether a plate is less than or equal to 84 mm,operators must rely on SB No. 101 Rev 3 or existing maintenance records to identify plate width. Misclassification of plate width could lead to incorrect inspection intervals.

• SB No. 101 Rev 3 is the operative normative document: The AD requires actions "in accordance with Avions Pierre Robin Service Bulletin (SB) No. 101 Revision 3" (Requirement). If an operator does not have access to SB No. 101 Rev 3 or misapplies a different revision, they may not be in compliance with the AD. The AD does not itself reproduce the measurement criteria, allowable crack dimensions, or repair details; these are in the SB. Operators must ensure they are using the correct revision (Revision 3).

• Cracks allowed under the SB carry a heightened inspection burden: If a detected crack is "within the allowable criteria of SB No. 101 Revision 3", the AD allows continued operation subject to inspections at intervals "not to exceed 25 hours time in service." This is a relatively short interval that may cause frequent maintenance interventions. Operators must plan for the consequential operational and maintenance burden if a crack is accepted under the SB’s tolerances.

• Cracks outside allowable criteria require "approved manufacturer repair" before further flight: The AD requires that where cracks exceed the SB’s allowable criteria, an "approved manufacturer repair, in accordance with SB No. 101 Revision 3" be accomplished "before further flight." That creates an immediate grounding until such a repair is performed. Operators should be prepared for potential aircraft downtime and for sourcing manufacturer-approved repair parts and qualification.

• No explicit alternative means of compliance (AMOC) or approval process in the AD text: The AD does not spell out how to obtain an alternative means of compliance or how approvals for repairs are to be documented. If an operator seeks a repair method not described in SB No. 101 Rev 3, the AD gives no procedure in its text for approving such a deviation. Practitioners should not assume an AMOC process from the AD itself; it is not described in the text.

• Removal of HR 200 models: Amendment 1 removes HR 200 variants from this AD because they are covered by EASA AD 2010-0231 (Background). Operators of HR 200 models must therefore check EASA AD 2010-0231 rather than relying on AD/ROBIN/40 Amdt 1. Failure to apply the correct AD for HR 200 series aircraft could lead to non-compliance.

• Lack of explicit enforcement language and reporting obligations: The AD sets technical obligations but does not specify reporting requirements or enforcement measures in the text provided. Operators should not infer that the absence of such language means reporting is unnecessary; the AD’s technical obligations exist within a broader regulatory framework which may impose reporting or record-keeping obligations elsewhere. The AD itself does not specify them.

• Serial-number complexity: The Applicability lists overlapping serial ranges and identifies additional serial sequences for certain models (e.g. Model R 2160 and R 2160i both list serial numbers 001-378 and then later ranges "and serial numbers160A-06001 and subsequent" or "160Ai-07007 and subsequent"). Practitioners must carefully verify the exact serial number format and ensure they are reading the serial numbers as printed; misreading serial numbers can lead to misapplication of the AD.

• Retroactive compliance phraseology: The AD’s language "unless already accomplished within the last 100 (or 500) hours time in service" requires operators to check maintenance history to see if the inspection has already been completed within the required window. For aircraft with incomplete maintenance records, operators may need to treat the inspection as due until proven otherwise.

These gotchas arise directly from the AD text and represent practical compliance and interpretation risks. They emphasise the need for operators to consult SB No. 101 Revision 3, to have complete maintenance records, to verify part dimensions, and to plan for potential downtime and manufacturer interaction where cracks exceed allowable dimensions.

This section sets out a step-by-step, source-grounded compliance checklist and practical handling approach based on the AD text. The steps below are strictly grounded in the AD’s requirements and language.

1. Confirm applicability

   • Determine whether your aircraft is within the Applicability set out in the AD: check model and serial number against the listed ranges for Model R 2100, R 2100 A, R 2112, R 2120 U, R 2160 D (serials 001-378), Model R 2160 (serials 001-378 and 160A-06001 and subsequent), and Model R 2160i (serials 001-378 and 160Ai-07007 and subsequent) (Applicability).
   • If your aircraft is an HR 200 variant that was previously included in older CASA material, note that Amendment 1 removes those HR 200 variants from this AD and directs attention to EASA AD 2010-0231 instead (Background).

2. Obtain Avions Pierre Robin Service Bulletin No. 101 Revision 3

   • The AD requires actions "in accordance with Avions Pierre Robin Service Bulletin (SB) No. 101 Revision 3." Obtain the correct revision of the service bulletin, ensure you have the full text and any referenced figures/tables, and ensure that maintenance personnel are familiar with its inspection, measurement and repair criteria (Requirement).

3. Establish support-plate width

   • Measure or verify from maintenance records the width of the nose landing gear support plates on your aircraft. The AD differentiates instructions for plates "with a width of less than 84 mm" and "with a width of 84 mm" (Compliance). Accurate classification determines the initial and recurring inspection intervals.

4. Satisfy initial inspection timing

   • For plates <84 mm: perform the inspection "Within 100 hours time in service after 17 January 2008, unless already accomplished within the last 100 hours time in service." If the inspection has not been performed within that window, schedule it as soon as practicable.
   • For plates =84 mm: perform the inspection "Within 500 hours time in service after 17 January 2008, unless already accomplished within the last 500 hours time in service." If not already done, schedule the inspection promptly (Compliance).
   • Note the AD’s statement that "Compliance times remain unchanged from 17 January 2008" to ensure historical compliance checks are accounted for (Compliance).

5. Conduct inspection per SB No. 101 Rev 3

   • Carry out the inspection following the exact procedures and inspection methods prescribed in SB No. 101 Revision 3. Where the SB requires specific non-destructive techniques, measuring methods, or component configurations, apply those methods accurately. Determine whether any cracking is present and, where present, determine crack dimensions "in accordance with SB No. 101 Revision 3" (Compliance).

6. Follow the AD’s outcomes based on measurement

   • If no cracking is detected, continue inspections at intervals not to exceed:
     • 100 hours time in service for plates <84 mm, or
     • 500 hours time in service for plates =84 mm (Compliance).
   • If cracks are detected, compare the measured dimensions against the allowable criteria in SB No. 101 Rev 3:
     • If cracks are within allowable criteria, continue operating subject to inspections at intervals not to exceed 25 hours time in service (Compliance).
     • If cracks exceed allowable criteria, do not fly the aircraft until you have "accomplished an approved manufacturer repair, in accordance with SB No. 101 Revision 3" (Compliance). The AD mandates repair "before further flight."

7. Use approved manufacturer repair methods where required

   • For cracks outside allowable criteria you must have the repair performed as an "approved manufacturer repair, in accordance with SB No. 101 Revision 3" (Compliance). Confirm the repair method is an approved repair under the manufacturer’s instructions and that any parts or procedures conform to SB No. 101 Rev 3.

8. Document actions

   • Although the AD does not state reporting requirements in its text, maintain full maintenance records showing inspection dates, results, measured crack dimensions, identification of the plate width used to select inspection intervals, repair actions performed, repair approvals and reinstatement to service. Retain SB No. 101 Rev 3 references used to make decisions.

9. Plan for operational impacts

   • If a crack is determined to be within allowable criteria, prepare for inspections every 25 hours, which may affect flight scheduling and maintenance planning. If repairs are required, prepare for potential downtime to obtain approved manufacturer repair instructions and spare parts and to perform the repair before flight resumption.

10. Coordinate with the manufacturer and regulator where needed

    • For repairs described as "approved manufacturer repair" ensure manufacturer involvement or approval channels are used to confirm the repair method. If you consider an alternative repair method or require an exemption, the AD does not specify an alternative means of compliance process; consult CASA or the manufacturer to obtain necessary approvals or guidance.

11. Check for parallel or superseding directives

    • If you operate HR 200 variants that you thought might be covered previously, note that those HR 200 variants have been removed from this AD and are covered by EASA AD 2010-0231 (Background). Ensure you are complying with the correct regulatory instrument for your aircraft.

12. Seek clarification if ambiguity exists

    • If the AD wording leaves uncertainty,e.g. around late compliance with the 17 January 2008 benchmark, the exact method to determine plate width where records are ambiguous, or what constitutes an "approved manufacturer repair",seek written clarification from CASA or the manufacturer before proceeding. The AD text does not include an AMOC procedure.

This compliance pathway is derived directly from the AD text and its references to SB No. 101 Rev 3. Operators should ensure they have the correct service bulletin, understand the plate-width distinction, complete inspections and measurement in accordance with the SB, implement a 25-hour inspection regime for acceptable cracks, and carry out manufacturer-approved repairs prior to further flight for cracks outside allowable criteria. Full documentation is recommended even though the AD itself does not specify reporting obligations.