CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988
CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998
ISSUE OF AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE
Under section 98 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, the Governor-General may make regulations for the purposes of the Act and in the interests of the safety of air navigation. Under regulation 39.001 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998, CASA may issue airworthiness directives (ADs) for kinds of aircraft or aeronautical products. Subregulation 39.001(5) of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 provides that an AD is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, an AD is a legislative instrument.
Under Annex 8 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the State of Design has overall responsibility for continuing airworthiness of an aircraft type, and must provide any information necessary to ensure the continuing airworthiness of a type to appropriate States of Registry. ADs (and their equivalents) are the most common form of continuing airworthiness information, and are issued by most ICAO Contracting States.
The State of Registry of an individual aircraft is responsible for its continuing airworthiness. Under Annex 8, the State of Registry must develop or adopt requirements to ensure the continuing airworthiness of aircraft. When a State of Design issues an AD against a type of aircraft on the Australian Register, CASA, as Australia’s national airworthiness authority, must assess that information and, if appropriate, issue an Australian AD to mandate the requirements of the State of Design.
CASA has raised AD/M20/32 Amendment 6 to correct an unsafe situation on Mooney M20 aircraft. Mooney M20s are susceptible to corrosion in the tubes of the fuselage space frame, and AD/M20/32 was initially raised in the 1980s to address this problem. The State of Design for this type, the USA, has not yet taken action to correct this unsafe condition. AD/M20/32 has been amended several times, but Amendment 5, in an effort to reduce the burden on industry, resulted in confusion as to which requirements had to be done when. As there are many examples of the M20 on the Australian register, CASA has issued AD/M20/32 Amendment 6 to remove the ambiguities and prevent the resulting confusion.
CASA has not consulted with the Australian industry and public because the change to this AD does not affect the intent of previous versions.
The Office of Regulatory Review has determined that ADs do not require a Regulatory Impact Statement.
The AD has been made by the Manager, Airframes in the Manufacturing, Certification and New Technologies Office, on behalf of CASA, in accordance with subsection 84A (2) of the Act.