Review of legacy airworthiness directives unique to Australia - Beechcraft wing bolt

Feedback updated 28 Jul 2026

We asked

In the second tranche of our review of legacy Australian airworthiness directives (ADs) for general aviation aircraft, we asked for feedback on:

  • the potential repeal of 7 Beechcraft wing bolt ADs
  • the policy framework used to assess whether these ADs are appropriate, justified and proportionate
  • our proposal for a CASA direction that aims to formalise existing continuing airworthiness responsibilities for aircraft used in air transport operations.

About this consultation

This consultation was open for a 4-week period from 21 May 2026 to 18 June 2026 and followed our earlier consultation on structural fatigue ADs.

The 7 Beechcraft wing bolt ADs proposed for repeal are the second category of ADs assessed under the policy framework.

We sought feedback on the policy proposal and the framework from aircraft owners, operators, and maintainers, as well as industry representative groups and other stakeholders to help inform a balanced and proportionate outcome.

We will undertake separate consultations on other categories of unique Australian ADs assessed in future as part of the review. These will also be assessed using the policy framework.

You said

We received a total of 39 responses via the Consultation Hub and direct email. Respondents identified as one or more of the following: pilot; aircraft owner; aircraft operator; aircraft maintenance engineer/LAME; maintenance organisation; industry representative or association.

Most respondents indicated they used their aircraft for private operations only, with a few indicating non-scheduled air transport (charter operations) or aerial work.

Of the respondents who made written submissions, 24 consented to publication of their submission and 15 requested their submission remain confidential.

Summary of feedback

The following is a summary of the key issues raised and organised into broad themes. Although this summary does not attempt to describe every issue raised in the feedback, all feedback received has been examined and considered.

The summary also does not represent our view or an agreed policy position. Rather, it reflects the different viewpoints of responses received.

Policy framework and approach

Respondents who commented on the policy framework or our approach indicated support for the review of legacy unique Australian ADs and for evidence-based and data-driven approaches to aircraft safety.

There was strong support for alignment with State of Design requirements and manufacturer Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, with respondents noting that this reflects modern airworthiness practice and international approaches.

Safety considerations

Overwhelmingly, respondents indicated that repeal of the ADs would still provide for an acceptable level of safety. Some responses in support of repeal noted there has been no evidence, over a significant period, of failure or fatigue cracking of wing bolt hardware (which includes bolts, washers and nuts) on Beechcraft aircraft covered by these ADs while in service.

However, some respondents acknowledged that the wing attachment hardware and bathtub fittings are a critical structural area that requires appropriate inspection and maintenance in accordance with the manufacturer's Instructions for Continuing Airworthiness. Corrosion of the hardware and fittings was raised as a concern in some responses, highlighting the need for proper inspection and maintenance practices, and expert knowledge and experience on critical structure for these aircraft types.

Maintenance-related risks

Most responses raised concern about risks that can be induced by maintenance and the damage arising from the removal and reinstallation of the wing attachment hardware to comply with Australian ADs. The key areas of risk mentioned were:

  • disturbance of a sound joint and damage to bolt holes and bathtub fittings caused by incorrect disassembly
  • damage to the fuselage or wing structures through incorrect rigging
  • misalignment or improper practices during maintenance
  • errors in reassembly including the fitting of washers backwards
  • damage to the bolts using incorrect tools
  • incorrect torquing and lubrication.

Those respondents that raised these concerns also noted that the risks of damage and incorrect disassembly and reassembly outweigh the risks of leaving the wing bolts in place and performing an in-situ visual inspection periodically along with the bolt replacement as per the manufacturer's specified bolt life limit.

Impact on operations

Respondents identified time and cost as the most significant operational impacts. Delays in accessing maintenance resources, particularly replacement parts and specialist tools, were a recurring concern. Some respondents reported needing to seek an Alternative Means of Compliance (AMOC) due to parts shortage - noting this process is time consuming and incurs costs.

Respondents also highlighted where maintenance requirements fall outside annual or other periodic inspections. This can require additional maintenance hangar visits and aircraft downtime. For owners and operators of small aircraft, maintenance visits beyond annual or 100-hourly inspections represent significant cost and operational burden.

The cost of replacement wing bolts, nuts and washer was also raised as a major concern. Respondents noted that removed wing attachment hardware is often found to be in good condition with low hours yet is often required to be replaced because of the AD. In addition, the nuts must be replaced each time they are removed, further increasing costs for owners and operators,

Proposed direction for aircraft used in air transport operations

A small number of respondents commented on the proposed direction for aircraft used in air transport operations. Those who commented indicated the view that the proposal for a direction is reasonable and appropriate, provided it does not mandate new requirements or create a burden greater than that removed through repeal of the ADs.

We did

We thank all respondents for their constructive input. The consultation provided valuable insights into the practical impacts of the current requirements, including the costs associated with compliance, maintenance resourcing challenges and the limited availability of parts.

We acknowledge that parts shortages may make it difficult for some operators to meet the wing bolt removal and replacement requirements specified in the ADs. Operators who are unable to comply with these requirements may apply for an Alternative Means of Compliance (AMOC), including requesting additional time, where they can demonstrate how an acceptable level of safety will be maintained.

Private operators will often be considered eligible for additional time to complete the wing bolt removal inspection if they first carry out a general visual inspection of the wing attach hardware and fitting areas.

Applications for an AMOC can be submitted through the CASA website.

Next steps

We will consider the consultation feedback alongside technical, safety and regulatory information as we continue to develop the proposal to repeal the 7 identified Beechcraft wing bolt ADs and an appropriate direction for the continuing airworthiness management of aircraft used for air transport operations. We will also consider whether additional information or guidance may assist aircraft owners and operators in managing the continuing airworthiness of ageing aircraft.

We will continue the broader review of legacy ADs unique to Australia that affect general aviation aircraft under 5,700 kg.

Separate consultations will be undertaken for each category of AD being considered for repeal. Stakeholders with relevant experience and expertise are encouraged to provide further feedback as this work progresses.

Published responses

View submitted responses where consent has been given to publish the response.

Closed 18 Jun 2026

Opened 21 May 2026

Contact

131757

regulatory-program@casa.gov.au

Overview

This consultation is the second tranche of our review of legacy Australian airworthiness directives (ADs) for general aviation aircraft. It follows the earlier consultation on structural fatigue ADs.

Using the same policy framework, we have identified a category of Beechcraft wing bolt ADs for potential repeal and seek your feedback on those ADs.

Industry has previously told us that the Beechcraft wing bolt ADs create additional burden and cost. They also noted that more onerous requirements for inspection and replacement of this hardware can create a risk of maintenance induced errors and damage, including to surrounding structures and to the bolt holes.

What we are consulting on

We are seeking feedback on:

  • the potential repeal of 7 Beechcraft wing bolt ADs
  • the policy framework we are using to assess whether these ADs are appropriate, justified and proportionate
  • our proposal for a CASA direction that aims to formalise existing continuing airworthiness responsibilities for aircraft used in air transport operations.

Rationale for the review

There are over 150 legacy Australian ADs affecting general aviation aircraft below 5,700 kg that remain active and may have unique Australian requirements. These ADs were issued before regulatory reforms in 2009 that introduced a more streamlined and internationally aligned approach to the management of ADs in Australia.

Before 2009, Australia did not automatically accept foreign-issued ADs. Instead, CASA and its predecessors issued Australian ADs regardless of the State of Design of the aircraft or product. As a result, a large number of Australian ADs were created – some imposing uniquely Australian requirements, and others duplicating, or closely aligning with ADs issued by the aircraft State of Design.

Under today’s regulatory, policy and risk framework, many of these ADs would be unlikely to be issued in the same form or at all.

Consistent with the commitment set out in CASA’s General Aviation Workplan, we are reviewing the remaining pre-2009 unique Australian ADs. The objectives of this review are to reduce unnecessary regulatory duplication and ensure that any uniquely Australian requirements remain appropriate, justified and proportionate in today’s operating and regulatory environment.

The ADs are being reviewed in categories under the policy framework, with separate consultations undertaken for each category.

Policy framework

How to best treat legacy unique Australian ADs in the contemporary airworthiness policy and regulatory environment raises a range of policy issues and questions.

We have developed the policy framework to guide the review of categories of pre-2009 unique Australian ADs.

The framework will enable a structured assessment of the ADs and, together with industry feedback, ensure that all relevant factors are considered. It also provides transparency for industry, owners and operators by clearly setting out how CASA will conduct the review.

All feedback received through public consultations will be considered and will help ensure the policy framework remains fit-for-purpose for the assessment of each category of ADs.

Beechcraft wing bolt ADs - proposal

The second category of ADs under review relates to Beechcraft wing bolts and associated hardware. These ADs were first issued in February 1996 and apply to certain Beechcraft aircraft including the Bonanza and Baron. In some cases, they require more onerous maintenance actions than the manufacturer’s Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. The State of Design has not issued corresponding ADs on this issue, meaning that Australia’s ADs are unique.

CASA has identified 7 ADs in this category. We propose that these ADs be repealed unless there is a clear evidence base to support their retention. Repealing these ADs would:

  • ensure maintenance actions align with the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness determined by the manufacturer and the State of Design
  • reduce regulatory burden and cost on Australian operators, and
  • better align Australia’s approach with contemporary airworthiness policy and international practice.  

Beechcraft wing bolt ADs in scope

The following wing bolt ADs are being considered for repeal:

Notes:

* This AD includes General AMOC CASA 11/24 and covering letter.

** This AD is not currently published by CASA. However, it is in force and published on the Federal Register of Legislation.

Alignment with international practice and expert knowledge

We will continue to rely on the National Aviation Authority (NAA) of the State of Design and the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) as primary sources of instructions for continuing airworthiness and continued operational safety requirements for the aircraft.

International experience, including accident and defect data from larger fleets overseas and the response of State of Design NAAs play a critical role in our continuing airworthiness requirements. Global harmonisation, alongside Australia’s ability to act where local circumstances and risks require it, ensures that the continuing operational safety of aircraft and products is managed most efficiently in the longer-term.

Safety is our priority

Aviation safety remains paramount. ADs are one element of a broader safety system, which includes certification standards, manufacturer instructions, maintenance programs and operational requirements. To deliver their intended safety benefit, it is important that ADs are necessary, relevant, up-to-date, and support compliance by not placing undue burden and cost on industry.

Owner and operator responsibilities do not change

Regardless of the outcome of this review, registered owners and operators continue to have legal responsibilities for continuing airworthiness of their aircraft and ensuring that the aircraft is fit for safe operation.

This includes complying with:

  • Mandatory Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA)
  • In force ADs in Australia (including State of Design ADs published by CASA)
  • CASA maintenance and operational requirements.

The potential repeal of these ADs does not remove or reduce these obligations.

Alternate means of compliance 

CASA recognises that parts shortages may make it difficult for some operators to meet the wing bolt removal and replacement requirements specified in these airworthiness directives.

At any time, operators may apply to CASA for an Alternate Means of Compliance (AMOC), including requesting additional time, provided they can demonstrate how an acceptable level of safety will be maintained.

Private operators may also be eligible for additional time to complete the wing bolt removal inspection where they first carry out a general visual inspection of the wing attach fitting areas.

Applications for an AMOC can be submitted through the CASA website.

Proposal – Air transport operations – aircraft continuing airworthiness management

Consistent with our regulatory philosophy, CASA applies a risk based regulatory approach, with the highest safety priority given to commercial passenger transport operations.

As part of the review of legacy ADs unique to Australia, CASA proposes to issue a direction requiring that the instructions for continuing airworthiness be considered in the continuing airworthiness management of aircraft used in air transport operations. Under this direction the registered operator would be required to have a system in place to monitor the aircraft manufacturer’s instructions for continuing airworthiness that relate to aircraft safety, and take appropriate action as required.

CASA considers this direction emphasises an existing continuing airworthiness management responsibility of AOC holders for air transport operations.

The following continuing airworthiness arrangements would be considered sufficient to meet the intent of the direction:

  • compliance with the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule (i.e. maintaining the aircraft in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions for continuing airworthiness)
  • an approved system of maintenance that is being kept up to date by the operator, or
  • an approved maintenance program under CASR Part 42.

Previous consultation

This consultation represents the second tranche of a broader program of work to review legacy ADs unique to Australia. 

We recently sought feedback on the assessment framework to review legacy unique Australian ADs and the potential repeal of 18 uniquely Australian ADs relating to structural fatigue. The consultation was conducted over a 4-week period 16 April to 14 May 2026. CASA will shortly publish a Summary of Consultation on this.

Why your views matter

We are seeking feedback from owners, operators, maintainers and other stakeholders to help inform a balanced, risk‑based outcome.

Your feedback will directly inform our assessment and any next steps.

How to submit feedback

Please submit your comments on the proposal through the consultation hub using the survey link provided on this page.

If you are unable to provide feedback via the survey link, please email us at regulatory-program@casa.gov.au

Documents for review

All documents related to this consultation are attached in the ‘Related’ section at the bottom of the overview page. They are:

  • Policy framework: unique Australian Airworthiness Directives
  • MS Word copy of online consultation for ease of distribution and feedback within your organisation.

What happens next

At the end of the response period, we will:

  • review all comments received
  • make responses publicly available on the consultation hub (unless you request your submission remain confidential)
  • publish a Summary of Consultation which summarises the feedback received and outlines next steps.

Audiences

  • Aerial work operator
  • Air operators
  • Aircraft maintenance engineers (AME)
  • Aircraft operators
  • Aircraft owner/operator
  • Airworthiness organisations
  • CASA Staff
  • Engineers
  • Licensed aircraft maintenance engineers (LAME)
  • Manufacturers
  • Part 145 of CASR approved maintenance organisations (AMO)
  • Regulation 30 of CAR maintenance organisations (CAR 30)

Interests

  • Aircraft certification and design
  • Aircraft engineer licensing
  • Airworthiness/maintenance
  • Airworthiness/maintenance (CAR 30 and CASR Part 145 maintenance orgs)
  • Continuing airworthiness / maintenance
  • Licensing
  • Maintenance organisations
  • Registered operators- Private and aerial work operations