I find it it perplexing that people are using an example whereby an SB was missed, under which the airlines own SOM would have directed it to have been addressed either way, the result of which summoned an enforcement by CASA of said SB with threat of grounding, followed by the AD, for a defect that had the potential of a major disaster. If you want to give me an example whereby the SB shouldn't be observed this one is definitely not it.
Again, clearly the people who wrote the Ansett article had no clue what they were talking about. They forgot to put in the paragraph that said: "The airline's approved system of maintenance required the SB to be carried out, and having not carried it out, the airline was in breach of the regulation requiring the airline to carry out maintenance in accordance with the approved system of maintenance. But CASA was not satisfied that this level of compulsion was sufficient, so CASA issued an AD to compel Ansett to do something it was already compelled to do."
The FAA and CASA left the airlines to decide, and continue to leave the airlines (and everyone else) to decide, what to do about SBs. That concept applies to
all SB's, including ones applicable to humble ol' Bendix magnetos.
In the case of the 767 engine pylon SB, however, the FAA and CASA eventually came to the realisation that compliance should be mandatory rather than a matter of choice, and issued an AD. That's what ADs are for. That's not what SBs are for.
Strawman argument, Eddie? So are you now saying that CASA
didn't ground Ansett because it failed to carry out the SB? What do you say is the basis on which CASA grounded Ansett?