AD compliance status
Boeing 737 MAX Airworthiness Directive status records review
This review reconciles the AD status list a Boeing 737 MAX carries against the evidence that each directive was actually accomplished. It runs during valuation, transfer, or a program change, run by or for the party relying on the status. It covers applicability to the serial number, the accomplishment record behind each closed line, the method of compliance chosen, and any recurring or terminating action still open. You receive an exception list per AD, a map from status line to accomplishment evidence, and a closure plan for the directives the file cannot yet support.
When this review is needed
- A 737 MAX is in diligence and the buyer will test every closed AD against its accomplishment evidence.
- The tail is transferring registers and the AD basis has to be restated for the receiving authority.
- A recurring AD is approaching its next threshold and the last accomplishment record has to be found.
- A status list was generated by a tracking system whose entries have never been checked to source.
The problem
An AD status list is the fastest thing to read and the slowest thing to prove. On a 737 MAX the list often comes straight out of a tracking system that shows a directive closed, while the accomplishment record, the method of compliance, and the applicability note that justify that line live in different places or not at all. Applicability is its own trap, because a directive can be closed as not applicable on reasoning that no longer holds for this serial number's configuration.
What gets reviewed
- AD applicability confirmed against the serial number's configuration and effectivity
- Accomplishment evidence located for each directive shown complied
- Method of compliance recorded and consistent with the directive's options
- Recurring actions with their last accomplishment and next threshold
- Terminating actions and the modifications that close a directive out
- Not-applicable calls checked against the reasoning and the current configuration
Scope this review
Tell us the asset, the event, and the evidence in scope, and we will outline a focused first engagement.
Send a representative, redacted record set and we will scope the review.
What gets validated
- Each closed AD line is supported by an accomplishment record, not the tracking entry alone
- The method of compliance matches an option the directive actually allows
- Applicability holds for this serial number given its embodied modifications
- Recurring directives show a datable last accomplishment and a defensible next threshold
- A terminating action shown complete is backed by the modification evidence that terminates it
Evidence normally required
- The current AD status list for the tail
- Accomplishment records, work orders, and task cards behind the closed lines
- The configuration and effectivity data applicability rests on
- Method-of-compliance references for the directives complied with
- Any prior AD audit or bridging analysis on the aircraft
Common discrepancies
- A directive shown complied in the tracker with no accomplishment record on file
- A recurring AD whose last accomplishment cannot be dated, leaving the threshold uncertain
- A not-applicable call resting on configuration data the aircraft no longer matches
- A method of compliance recorded that the directive does not actually permit
What is at stake
A closed AD line with no accomplishment record behind it is an open finding waiting for a buyer or auditor to raise, and it reopens on the current owner's account. A recurring directive whose last accomplishment cannot be dated leaves the next threshold uncertain, and an applicability call taken on stale configuration data can miss a directive that actually applies.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Fix applicability
Confirm which directives apply given the serial number's configuration and effectivity.
Trace accomplishment
Locate the accomplishment record and method behind each closed line.
Test the recurring and terminating actions
Date the last accomplishment on recurring ADs and verify the modification behind each terminating action.
Report exceptions
Deliver the per-AD exception list, source map, and closure plan.
What the buyer receives
- An exception list per AD graded by evidence, applicability, and method
- A source map from each status line to its accomplishment record
- A closure plan for the directives the file cannot yet support
Who uses the output
- Asset managers testing whether the AD position survives diligence
- Continuing-airworthiness teams restating the AD basis for a new register
- Records teams gathering the accomplishment evidence behind unsupported lines
How the work fits into the transaction or program
AD status rests on the configuration baseline and feeds nearly every transaction and program decision, so a status list that does not reconcile to evidence undermines the file above it. This review closes that gap between the list and its source, and its exception list drives the accomplishment-evidence recovery a transfer or program change depends on.
Aircraft-specific considerations
The 737 MAX carries a distinctive AD history tied to its return-to-service configuration, so software and flight-control directives sit alongside the structural and systems directives common to the type. Configuration control is central: applicability and terminating action often turn on the exact software and part-number standard embodied at delivery and since, which is where a status line most often detaches from the airframe's real state.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
FAA and EASA can issue parallel directives on the same 737 MAX condition with different thresholds or terminating actions, so a tail moving between registers needs its AD basis mapped to the receiving authority's directive set rather than assumed equivalent.
Regulatory limits
This review reconciles the AD status to its evidence and applicability. It does not accomplish a directive, approve a method of compliance, or make an airworthiness determination on the aircraft.
What this review does not cover
- Accomplishing or re-accomplishing any airworthiness directive
- Approving a method of compliance or an alternative means
- Any airworthiness determination on the tail
Specific to this review
- A tracking system shows a directive closed; the accomplishment record, method, and applicability behind that line are three separate things to prove.
- Not-applicable is the riskiest AD status, because the call can rest on configuration data the aircraft has since moved past.
- On the 737 MAX, applicability and terminating action frequently turn on the embodied software and part-number standard, so configuration control drives the AD picture.
Sources
U.S. Government (eCFR). The legal basis for issuing and enforcing Airworthiness Directives on U.S.-registered products.
U.S. Government (eCFR). Records an owner or operator must keep, including total time in service, current status of life-limited parts, and AD compliance.
European Union / EASA. Continuing airworthiness, maintenance records, CAMO responsibilities, and the airworthiness review process in the EASA system.
Frequently asked questions
Our tracking system already shows the ADs closed. What does this add?
The tracker records a status; it does not hold the accomplishment record, the method of compliance, or the applicability reasoning that a buyer or auditor will demand. This review tests each closed line against that underlying evidence and flags the ones that stand only on the tracker.
Relevant glossary terms
Related pages
Where this fits
Talk to an engineer who has done this work
We will walk through your current state, the records or evidence involved, and a scoped first engagement.
Talk through the aircraft, records, evidence, deadline, and next useful step.