AD/SF340/107 Amdt 1 - Fuel System - Refuel/Defuel Illuminated Placard

The core concept is an airworthiness directive - a mandatory regulatory instrument issued by CASA under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to correct an unsafe condition in an aircraft type. It overrides any less restrictive maintenance practice and imposes a legal obligation on the operator (the person responsible for the aircraft’s continuing airworthiness) to perform the stipulated actions within defined time limits.

The affected part is the Vibrachoc illuminated placard with part number C4FL5031C001, which is the refuel/defuel panel placard located on panel 160VU. This is the manufacturer’s part number, not the SAAB part number (9303719‑001) that was erroneously quoted in the original directive. The amendment corrected this identification to ensure only the correct part is targeted and to avoid confusion with other placards that might share a similar SAAB number but have different risk characteristics.

Manufacturing date is a critical parameter. The directive uses a year‑week format (e.g. “31/97” means the 31st week of 1997). The original issue had inadvertently disallowed installation of placards with a manufacturing date before 31/97; the amendment corrects this by expressly allowing such placards. The date split reflects a design change: placards made before the 31st week of 1997 did not contain the silicone fill that caused the overheating. Placards made from the 37th week of 2007 onward were manufactured with a bi‑component silicone‑based material that minimised internal cavities, and these are also acceptable but must be marked “Amdt: A” to indicate the revised specification. Placards manufactured between 31/97 and 36/07 (inclusive) are the unsafe population and may not be installed.

Signs of heat and/or burn marks is the inspection criterion. If such marks are present, it indicates that the placard has already experienced an overheating event and poses an immediate risk of smoke or fire during refuelling or defuelling. The directive requires replacement before the next flight, which is a high‑priority action. If no marks are found, the placard is still presumed to be at risk due to the silicone fill and must be replaced within 12 months.

The concept of “system of maintenance entry” appears in Note 1. This allows an operator to comply with Requirement 4 (the installation prohibition) not by physically checking every placard at every installation, but by embedding the check into the operator’s approved maintenance system - e.g. through a procedure that verifies part number and manufacturing date before any such placard is fitted, and also when spares are received into store. This reduces the administrative burden of having to inspect each individual placard at line‑level, but imposes a system‑design cost on the operator to create and audit that procedure.

The background explains the safety reason: smoke was detected during ground refuelling. SAAB investigated and found that the silicone fill introduced in 1997 could cause internal heating. The fix was a new placard with a bi‑component silicone material that left minimal cavity. The directive therefore mandates replacement of the suspect placards with either the pre‑1997 design (no silicone) or the post‑mid‑2007 improved design.

The primary affected entities are operators of SAAB SF340A and SF340B aeroplanes registered in Australia. These are typically regional airlines, charter operators, freight operators, or corporate flight departments that own or operate the type. The directive applies to all serial numbers of those two models, so no aircraft is exempt based on age or configuration. Operators bear the direct cost of inspection, sourcing compliant placards, labour, and any aircraft downtime.

Maintenance organisations that perform work on these aircraft are affected because they must be aware of the directive and its compliance times. They are the ones who will physically carry out the inspection and replacement in accordance with SAAB SB 340‑28‑027. If an operator chooses the “system of maintenance entry” approach (Note 1), the maintenance organisation’s procedures must incorporate the part‑number‑date check. They also need to ensure that only placards meeting the allowed date criteria are installed.

Part suppliers and inventory managers are affected because they are prohibited from supplying or offering for installation any placard P/N C4FL5031C001 with a manufacturing date between 31/97 and 36/07 inclusive, unless it is marked “Amdt: A” (and even then, only if the date is 37/07 or later). Suppliers must screen their stock and quarantine non‑compliant units. This may cause supply chain disruption, especially if operators rely on rotable spares that were manufactured in the problematic period. The directive creates a market distortion: pre‑1997 placards, which are older and potentially harder to find, are now the only allowed replacement for those that cannot source the post‑2007 “Amdt: A” version. This could drive up prices for the older units.

CASA is the regulator that issued and enforces the directive. The background reveals that the amendment was partly prompted by a request from an Australian operator (together with SAAB) who identified the part number error in the original directive. This shows that operators can engage with CASA to correct technical errors, but the overall regulatory burden remains.

EASA is indirectly affected because the directive references EASA AD 2008‑0127R1 and accepts later EASA‑approved revisions of the service bulletin. This means EASA effectively sets the technical standard that CASA has adopted. Australian operators cannot use a different service bulletin revision unless it is EASA‑approved, which ties Australian regulation to European airworthiness decisions.

SAAB (the aircraft manufacturer) and Vibrachoc (the part manufacturer) are affected because the directive drives demand for the replacement part. SAAB issued the service bulletin that provides the instructions, and SAAB’s engineering assessment underpins the directive. The correction of the SAAB part number in the amendment suggests that SAAB or the operator identified an error, and SAAB coordinated with EASA to fix it.

The ground crew who refuel the aircraft are inadvertently affected because the safety issue was discovered by them detecting smoke. The directive, if successful, reduces their risk of exposure to a fire hazard during fuelling.

Overall, the directive imposes a concentrated compliance cost on a small population of Australian SAAB operators (likely fewer than a dozen aircraft), while the diffuse benefit is increased safety for passengers, crew, and ground personnel during a high‑risk ground operation. The compliance burden is non‑trivial for a small operator: sourcing a specific historic part number with a narrow date window, performing an inspection, and possibly having to replace a placard before the next flight if damage is found.

The directive imposes four duties, each with a specific timeframe.

Duty 1 (Inspection): Operators must inspect the refuel/defuel panel illuminated placard P/N C4FL5031C001 for signs of heat and/or burn marks. This inspection must be carried out in accordance with SAAB SB 340‑28‑027 dated 30 April 2008. The compliance time is within three months after the effective date of this directive (effective 25 September 2008, so due by 25 December 2008). If the inspection was already accomplished under the original issue (which became effective 28 August 2008), it is deemed to satisfy Requirement 1.

Duty 2 (Immediate replacement): If heat or burn marks are found during the inspection, the placard must be replaced before the next flight. There is no grace period. The replacement must be with a unit that meets the allowed part number and date criteria: either a placard with a manufacturing date before 31/97, or a placard with date 37/07 or later and marked “Amdt: A”. The instructions in SB 340‑28‑027 must be followed.

Duty 3 (Deferred replacement): If no heat or burn marks are found, the placard must still be replaced within 12 months after the Requirement 1 inspection. The same date criteria apply to the replacement unit. This means that even placards that appear serviceable must be removed and replaced, because they are considered to have an unsafe design that could eventually fail.

Duty 4 (Installation prohibition): From 28 November 2009, no person may install a placard P/N C4FL5031C001 on any SAAB SF340A/B aircraft unless it either has a manufacturing date before 31/97, or has a manufacturing date of 37/07 or higher and is marked “Amdt: A”. This is a permanent restriction that applies to both new installations and replacements. It effectively creates a parts‑ban for the intermediate date range.

Rights of operators: Operators have the right to use later revisions of SAAB SB 340‑28‑027 that are approved by EASA. This provides flexibility if the service bulletin is updated to improve the inspection procedure or to correct errors. Operators also have the right to comply with Requirement 4 through a “system of maintenance entry” (Note 1). That means if the operator’s approved maintenance system includes a check that the part number and manufacturing date are compliant before installation, they need not physically inspect each placard at the point of installation. This reduces hands‑on labour but requires a documented procedure and audit trail.

Operators also have the right to rely on prior compliance with the original issue of the directive for Requirement 1. If they already performed the inspection before the amendment took effect, they do not need to repeat it. This is a recognition of work already done, which reduces double‑cost.

Rights of installers: Maintenance providers are entitled to use the specified service bulletin instructions. If they follow those instructions and the date checks accurately, they are deemed to have complied with the directive. No alternative means of compliance are offered beyond the EASA‑approved bulletin revisions. This limits the scope for innovative compliance methods.

Rights of part manufacturers: Vibrachoc can continue to produce placards with the “Amdt: A” specification, and these are explicitly allowed. The directive does not prohibit manufacture of new placards that meet the 37/07 date and marking requirement.

From an incentives standpoint, the directive creates a clear duty to replace, but offers no credit for placards that have already been inspected and found clean. They still must be replaced within 12 months. This removes any incentive to delay replacement and ensures a uniform outcome, but it also means operators bear the full cost of replacement even if the placard was not showing signs of distress. The system‑of‑maintenance entry option is a sensible concession to reduce the administrative overhead of checking every individual part at every line maintenance event, but it still requires a procedural investment.

The directive itself does not specify a monetary penalty or criminal sanction. Instead, enforcement arises under the broader legal framework governing Australian airworthiness. CASA is empowered to issue airworthiness directives under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR). Non‑compliance with an AD is a breach of airworthiness requirements; it renders the aircraft unairworthy. Flying an aircraft that does not comply with applicable ADs is prohibited, and the operator or the pilot in command could face enforcement action.

Under the Civil Aviation Act, CASA can issue infringement notices (on‑the‑spot fines), institute prosecution for an offence, suspend or cancel an air operator’s certificate, or issue a direction to ground the aircraft. The specific penalties for contravening an AD would typically be found in regulation 42.210 of CASR (if applicable as at the directive’s date) or in associated provisions. For an individual, the maximum penalty for operating an aircraft not in compliance with an airworthiness directive can be thousands of penalty units (each penalty unit was $110 in 2008, so a 50‑unit fine would be $5,500). For a corporation, fines are higher, and responsible officers may also face personal liability if they authorised the non‑compliance.

Enforcement risk is heightened for Requirement 2 (before‑next‑flight replacement). If an operator flies an aircraft after discovering heat or burn marks but before replacing the placard, that flight is in breach of the directive and could attract immediate enforcement. CASA’s enforcement policy is risk‑based; an AD addressing a smoke/fire hazard is high‑risk, so a breach would likely be treated seriously.

The directive also places obligations on maintenance organisations. If a maintenance organisation installs a non‑compliant placard (e.g. one with a manufacturing date in the prohibited range), it may be in breach of its maintenance regulations and could lose its approval or face penalties.

CASA’s delegate, Charles Lenarcic, signed the directive on 15 August 2008. The directive itself states that it becomes effective on 25 September 2008. From that date, failure to meet the compliance times is a continuing breach. The original issue had an earlier effective date (28 August 2008), so there may have been a short overlap where two versions were in force. The amendment supersedes the original, and any aircraft that was compliant with the original may need to adjust to the amended requirements (e.g., if it had installed a placard with a date before 31/97, the original issue might have wrongly prohibited that; the amendment now validates it).

In practice, CASA typically audits compliance with ADs during routine surveillance or incident investigations. Operators must maintain records of AD compliance in the aircraft maintenance release or logbook. The absence of such records is itself a red flag. The directive does not impose a reporting requirement, but CASA can request evidence of compliance.

Because this is a fleet‑wide directive with firm deadlines, the enforcement risk is moderate. The cost of non‑compliance (potential fine, grounding, certificate action) is likely far higher than the cost of replacing a placard. Therefore, rational operators will comply within the required times. The only enforcement ambiguity is around the “system of maintenance entry” option: CASA would need to be satisfied that the operator’s system actually ensures compliance. If the system is flawed and a non‑compliant part is installed, the operator may still be in breach even if they believed they had a compliant system.

This directive interacts primarily with the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR), which govern airworthiness in Australia. ADs are a specific type of regulatory instrument under those regulations. Compliance with an AD is a condition of the aircraft’s certificate of airworthiness. If an operator fails to comply, the aircraft cannot lawfully be flown.

The directive explicitly references EASA AD 2008‑0127R1, the European equivalent. This reflects the fact that the SAAB SF340 was designed and certified in Europe. CASA has chosen to adopt the EASA action, with a slight amendment to correct the part number. This creates a regulatory chain: EASA sets the baseline, CASA mirrors it. Australian operators cannot comply with a different EASA revision than the one referenced (or later revisions approved by EASA). They are also bound to use SAAB SB 340‑28‑027 as the method of compliance. There is no provision to use an alternative procedure unless CASA separately approves it, which is not mentioned.

The directive also interacts with the manufacturer’s service bulletin (SB 340‑28‑027). The service bulletin is not legally binding on its own; it becomes mandatory only when incorporated into an AD. However, the AD requires that the inspection and replacement be done “in accordance with the instructions of” the service bulletin. Therefore, the service bulletin’s technical details become legally enforceable. If the service bulletin contains errors or omissions, the operator is still responsible for following it. Later EASA‑approved revisions are acceptable, meaning the technical standard can evolve without CASA having to issue a new AD each time.

Note 2 of the directive states “EASA AD 2008‑0127R1 refers.” This cross‑reference means that if an operator reads the EASA AD, they will see the same technical content but with the original (incorrect) part number. The CASA version corrects that. Operators must use the CASA version for Australian compliance.

The directive may also interact with overseas regulations if the aircraft is operated internationally. A SAAB SF340 registered in Australia and flown to another country will need to comply with the airworthiness requirements of both the State of Registry (Australia) and the State of the Operator (if different). Many countries accept CASA ADs, but some may require evidence of compliance with an equivalent local AD. Because this AD is based on an EASA AD, mutual recognition is likely easy.

There is possible interaction with insurance policies. Operators are typically required by their hull and liability insurance to maintain the aircraft in an airworthy condition. Non‑compliance with an AD could void coverage if a claim arises from a fuel‑system fire.

The directive does not interact with work health and safety laws directly, but the safety outcome (preventing fire during refuelling) may also be relevant under state or territory WHS legislation that imposes duties on persons conducting a business or undertaking to eliminate risks. However, the AD is the primary regulatory tool.

There is no mention of alternative means of compliance or deviations. This is a strict directive. If an operator has a different engineering solution (e.g., removing the placard entirely or replacing it with a non‑illuminated placard), that would require a separate CASA approval, which is not provided for here. This rigidity ensures uniformity but can be costly if the required part becomes unavailable.

From an economic perspective, the directive creates a form of regulatory harmonisation with EASA, which reduces duplication for operators who already comply with EASA ADs. However, it also means that any future changes to the EASA AD will automatically flow into the CASA system if CASA accepts the later service bulletin revision. This reduces CASA’s administrative burden but surrenders some sovereign control.

The directive AD/SF340/107 has two versions: the original issue and Amdt 1. The original issue became effective on 28 August 2008. Amdt 1 became effective on 25 September 2008, less than one month later. The amendment is clearly a response to a defect in the original text.

The background section of Amdt 1 explains the changes. Two substantive corrections were made:

1. Part number identification - The original directive identified the affected placard by the SAAB part number 9303719‑001, but that number was “quoted inaccurately”. The amendment corrects this to the Vibrachoc part number C4FL5031C001. This is significant because a wrong part number could have led operators to inspect the wrong component or miss the actual unsafe part. The request for this correction came from an Australian operator and SAAB, indicating a proactive effort by industry to refine the regulatory text.

2. Manufacturing date allowance - The original directive did not allow installation of placards with a manufacturing date before 31/97. EASA recognised this as an error and corrected it. The amendment now explicitly allows placards with a date before 31/97. This means that placards made before the design change (i.e., before the silicone fill was introduced) are safe and can continue to be used. The original wording had inadvertently banned them, which would have forced replacement of perfectly safe parts and increased compliance costs unnecessarily.

The amendment also includes a note that prior compliance with Requirement 1 of the original issue is recognised. So operators who already inspected within three months of the original effective date do not have to re‑do the inspection. This avoids wasteful duplication.

The amendment itself is dated 15 August 2008 (signature date by Charles Lenarcic, Delegate of CASA). It was made effective on 25 September 2008, giving operators a short transition period from the original effective date. Because the amendment changes some requirements (e.g., making pre‑31/97 placards permissible), operators who had already taken action based on the original issue may have unnecessarily replaced pre‑31/97 placards. The directive does not offer reimbursement or credit for such over‑compliance. That is an implicit cost of the error.

The amendment history shows that CASA was responsive to stakeholder feedback. The directive text was revised quickly to correct errors. However, the short time between the two effective dates (28 August and 25 September) means that some operators may have already sourced and installed replacement placards based on the original, incorrect part number. If they installed a placard with the SAAB P/N 9303719‑001 but not the Vibrachoc P/N, they might still need to inspect again. The amendment does not clarify that point; it simply changes the part number reference.

There is no mention of any further amendments. The AD appears to be a one‑time fix for a batch of out‑of‑spec placards. Because the requirement is to replace all unsafe placards once, after all aircraft are compliant, the AD will eventually be ”closed” for individual aircraft once the replacement is recorded. CASA may later cancel the directive for aircraft that have been modified, but as of this text it remains active.

The source text of AD/SF340/107 Amdt 1 contains no references to litigation, court cases, or judicial review proceedings. There is no known history of legal challenge to this specific directive in Australia. Airworthiness directives are generally considered administrative instruments that are rarely litigated because the compliance cost is typically lower than the cost of fighting a regulator, and the safety justification is difficult to rebut.

Given the narrow scope of the directive (a single placard on a small fleet type) and the fact that the amendment corrected errors identified by an operator and the manufacturer, it is likely that industry accepted the directive without legal contest. The error in the part number was fixed quickly, which may have defused any potential grievance.

If there were litigation, it could have arisen from an operator arguing that the original directive (which wrongly prohibited pre‑31/97 placards) caused economic loss. However, the amendment was issued almost immediately, so any damages would be minimal. An operator who had replaced a pre‑31/97 placard unnecessarily might have considered a claim against CASA for flawed rulemaking, but there is no evidence of such a claim.

The directive does not appear to have been the subject of Administrative Appeals Tribunal review or Federal Court action. Such a review would require an operator to show that the directive was beyond CASA’s power, or that it was procedurally flawed. Given that the subject matter involves a genuine safety risk (smoke detected during refuelling) and that CASA followed the established AD process, a challenge would have low chances of success.

For the purposes of this deep dive, the litigation history is essentially non‑existent. This is typical for most CASA ADs, which are technical corrections rather than controversial policy instruments. The absence of litigation does not mean compliance is optional; it simply means the directive was accepted as a necessary safety measure.

There is also no mention of any international litigation concerning EASA AD 2008‑0127R1 or subsequent disputes. The European airworthiness system similarly rarely sees direct challenges to individual ADs.

Because the legal risk to an operator of non‑compliance (enforcement action) is far higher than the cost of compliance, litigation is economically irrational unless the AD is fundamentally flawed or imposes disproportionate costs. Here, the cost of a placard replacement is modest (likely a few hundred dollars for the part and labour), so litigation would be a waste.

Thus, the litigation history is nil. That is the information we have from the source. We cannot invent cases. We can note that the absence of litigation suggests industry acceptance.

Several elements of this directive could trip up operators or maintenance organisations.

Part number confusion. The original issue used SAAB P/N 9303719‑001. The amendment corrects this to Vibrachoc P/N C4FL5031C001. An operator who only had the original text might still be inspecting the wrong placard or searching for a SAAB part number that does not appear on the component. The amendment says prior compliance with Requirement 1 (inspection) of the original is acceptable, but if an operator inspected the wrong placard based on the SAAB number, they may not have actually inspected the correct component. The directive does not address this. A cautious operator would re‑inspect using the corrected part number.

Date format trap. The manufacturing date is given in ISO week format (e.g., 31/97). Week 31 of 1997 is around late July/early August 1997. Week 37 of 2007 is around mid‑September 2007. Placards with dates written in other formats (e.g., DD/MM/YY) could be misinterpreted. The placard itself likely has a date code that must be read carefully. If the date stamp is ambiguous, the operator may need to contact Vibrachoc or SAAB for interpretation.

“Amdt: A” marking. For post‑37/07 placards to be allowed, they must be marked “Amdt: A”. A placard with manufacturing date 37/07 or later that lacks this marking is not allowed. The directive does not say what the marking physically looks like. A maintenance engineer might miss it. The marking indicates that the placard is the improved design with bi‑component silicone.

Before‑next‑flight urgency. Requirement 2 says if heat or burn marks are found, the placard must be replaced before the next flight. This is an immediate grounding condition. However, the inspection may be performed at a line maintenance base without the correct replacement part on hand. The aircraft would be grounded until the part can be sourced. Operators should pre‑procure a few compliant placards to avoid operational disruption.

12‑month clock. Requirement 3 gives 12 months from the Requirement 1 inspection, not from the effective date. If an operator delayed the inspection to the last day of the three‑month window (e.g., 24 December 2008), the replacement would be due by 24 December 2009. If they inspected early (e.g., September 2008), the replacement is due by September 2009. This means the compliance deadline varies by operator. A maintenance planner must track per‑aircraft inspection dates.

Requirement 4 date. The installation prohibition takes effect on 28 November 2009. This is a fixed date, not tied to the inspection. After that date, no placard with the prohibited date range (31/97 to 36/07 without “Amdt: A”) may be installed, even if the aircraft is not yet due for the Requirement 3 replacement. So if an aircraft had no marks and its placard was scheduled for replacement within 12 months (say, in February 2009), but then that placard was damaged and needed replacement before November 2009, the operator could still install a prohibited placard until 28 November 2009. After that date, only allowed date placards may be installed.

System of maintenance entry trap. Note 1 allows compliance through the operator’s system of maintenance requiring a check before installation. But if that system is not documented or auditable, an operator cannot prove compliance. Also, the system must check not just the part number but also the manufacturing date and the “Amdt: A” marking. A generic ”verify part number” procedure will not suffice.

Prior compliance only for Requirement 1. The amendment states that prior compliance with Requirement 1 of the original issue is recognised. But if an operator performed only the inspection and then did Requirement 2 or 3 under the original issue, they may have replaced the placard with a unit that had a manufacturing date before 31/97 (which the original incorrectly disallowed) and then that replacement is now valid because the amendment allows it. However, if they replaced with a placard date between 31/97 and 36/07 (thinking it was allowed because the original did not mention those dates), that placard might still be unsafe. The amendment does not address this. Operators who replaced under the original issue should re‑verify the replacement placard’s date.

Use of later SB revisions. The directive says later EASA‑approved revisions of SB 340‑28‑027 are acceptable. But revisions after the 2008 issue may include different inspection criteria or part numbers. An operator who uses a later revision must ensure it is actually EASA‑approved and that the revision applies to the SF340A/B.

No exemption for non‑fleet operators. The directive applies to all serial numbers. A small operator with a single aircraft must comply with the same requirements as a large airline. No compliance grace or extension is provided beyond the stated times. If a part is unavailable, the operator cannot simply wait; they may need to ground the aircraft.

Potential part shortage. Pre‑31/97 placards are old and may be hard to find. Post‑37/07 “Amdt: A” placards may be available but could be expensive. If neither is in stock, the aircraft cannot be made compliant. Operators should source replacement placards well before the deadline.

Compliance involves a sequence of actions, each with a specific time limit and documentation requirement. The following step‑by‑step approach assumes an aircraft that has not yet taken any action under the original directive.

Step 1: Determine prior compliance. Check the aircraft maintenance records to see if Requirement 1 (inspection) was already accomplished under the original issue (effective 28 August 2008). If it was, you do not need to repeat the inspection. If not, proceed to Step 2.

Step 2: Obtain the correct service bulletin. Acquire SAAB Service Bulletin 340‑28‑027 dated 30 April 2008 (or a later EASA‑approved revision). Verify that the bulletin is current and approved by EASA. The bulletin contains the detailed inspection procedure and part replacement instructions.

Step 3: Inspect the placard. Within three months of the directive’s effective date (25 September 2008) - i.e., by 25 December 2008 - locate the refuel/defuel panel illuminated placard on the 160VU panel. Verify that the part number is Vibrachoc C4FL5031C001. Visually inspect the placard for any signs of heat damage, burn marks, discolouration, or smoke staining. Follow the bulletin’s criteria. Record the results in the aircraft logbook or maintenance release, including the part number, manufacturing date (if legible), and inspection findings.

Step 4: Act on inspection results.

• If heat or burn marks are found: Replace the placard before the next flight. The replacement unit must be either a placard with a manufacturing date before week 31 of 1997, or a placard with a manufacturing date of week 37 of 2007 or later and marked “Amdt: A”. Install per the service bulletin. Record the replacement, including new part number and date.

• If no heat or burn marks are found: The placard must still be replaced within 12 months of the date of the Step 3 inspection. Use an allowed placard as above. Schedule the replacement accordingly. The 12‑month clock starts from the actual inspection date, not the effective date.

Step 5: Permanent installation prohibition. From 28 November 2009, do not install any placard P/N C4FL5031C001 unless it meets the two allowed date conditions. This prohibition applies to all installations, including replacement of a placard that has no heat marks (i.e., even if the 12‑month replacement has not yet been done, any unplanned replacement after 28 November 2009 must use an allowed unit). To manage this, you can:

• Option A: At each installation, physically check the placard’s manufacturing date and “Amdt: A” marking before fitting.
• Option B (Note 1): Implement a system of maintenance entry. This means embedding a check into your approved maintenance procedures. For example, create a procedure in your continuing airworthiness management exposition (CAME) or maintenance organization exposition (MOE) that requires any person ordering, receiving, or fitting part C4FL5031C001 to verify the date code and marking. Also, check spares on receipt to ensure non‑compliant units are quarantined. Document this procedure and ensure it is audited.

Step 6: Record keeping. Maintain records of:

• The initial inspection (date, findings).
• Any replacement action (date, part number, manufacturing date, marking).
• The system of maintenance entry (if used) with evidence of checks performed.
• Any use of later service bulletin revisions (include revision number and EASA approval evidence).

These records must be accessible for CASA surveillance.

Step 7: Monitor service bulletin revisions. From time to time, check whether EASA has approved a later revision of SB 340‑28‑027. If a new revision is approved, evaluate whether it changes the inspection or replacement instructions. If it does, you must comply with the revised version because the directive says later revisions are acceptable. You may opt to continue using the original 2008 revision if it remains approved, but using a later revision may simplify compliance or correct errors.

Step 8: Fleet‑wide coordination. If you operate multiple SF340s, schedule the inspections so that 12‑month replacement deadlines do not all cluster at once. Stagger inspections across the three‑month window to spread workload.

Cost implications: The part cost is likely modest (perhaps $50-$200 per placard). Labour for inspection is maybe 0.5-1 hour. Labour for replacement is 1-2 hours. The main risk is downtime if heat marks are found and the replacement part is not immediately available. The system‑of‑maintenance‑entry option avoids per‑installation checks but requires procedural development; the cost of that depends on whether you already have a robust parts‑receiving procedure.

Common pitfalls to avoid:

• Using a placard with date 31/97-36/07 that lacks “Amdt: A” (these are prohibited).
• Using a placard with date 37/07 or later that is not marked “Amdt: A”.
• Misreading date codes (ensure you understand the YY/WW format).
• Forgetting to update the system of maintenance if you rely on it, and failing to train store staff.
• Assuming that prior compliance with the original issue means the placard is good for life. The amendment still requires replacement within 12 months of inspection if no marks are found, regardless of prior compliance.
• Not keeping evidence of compliance in a form readily auditable by CASA.

Following these steps will place the aircraft in full compliance with AD/SF340/107 Amdt 1.