Non-routine findings
Boeing 737 MAX non-routine card records review
A Boeing 737 MAX non-routine records review works through the defect cards a check raised and confirms each one closed on evidence rather than a signature alone. It is run by or for a lessor, operator, or asset manager evaluating or transferring a specific tail. Each card is traced from the finding that opened it, through the engineering disposition and corrective action, to the final sign-off and any deferred remainder. You receive a supported exception list, a source map tying each closure to its card, and a closure plan for the items that do not yet hold.
When this review is needed
- A recent heavy check on the tail generated a large batch of non-routine cards that no one has reconciled to closure.
- A buyer wants the defect history read before pricing, because open dispositions can carry into their ownership.
- A card references an engineering disposition that is not in the file and the closure cannot be relied on without it.
- Deferred items from the check need to be separated from cards that genuinely closed.
The problem
Non-routine cards are where a check writes down what it actually found, and they close in a rush at the end of a slot. A card can carry a sign-off while the engineering disposition it depended on sits in a separate system, or a corrective action that changed the airframe never made it back to configuration. On a 737 MAX with dense software and avionics content, a card that touched a part-number change is easy to close on the shop floor and lose in the records.
What gets reviewed
- Every non-routine card from the reviewed events matched to the finding that opened it
- Engineering dispositions referenced by a card confirmed present and applicable to this serial number
- Corrective actions traced to a sign-off and, where relevant, to a configuration entry
- Deferred remainders separated from cards that reached full closure
- The non-routine register reconciled against the cards actually on file
- Cards touching software or avionics part numbers checked against the recorded 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 card cites a disposition that exists in the file and applies to this airframe
- Corrective actions that changed configuration are reflected in the configuration record
- A card marked deferred carries a valid deferral basis rather than an open finding treated as closed
- The register count agrees with the cards on file, with no card silently dropped
- Sign-offs trace to a qualified release rather than an initial with no supporting entry
Evidence normally required
- The non-routine card set from the reviewed check or checks
- The non-routine register or work-package summary for the event
- Engineering dispositions and any repair or modification data the cards reference
- The configuration record the cards should feed changes back into
- The deferral log for items carried beyond the slot
Common discrepancies
- A card closed on a disposition that is referenced but not present in the file
- A corrective action that altered the airframe without a matching configuration entry
- An open finding recorded as closed because the deferral was never logged
- A register line with no card behind it, or a card the register never captured
What is at stake
A non-routine card that closed without its disposition leaves the airframe carrying a change nobody can substantiate later. At the next transaction the buyer reopens each questionable closure, and a card that altered configuration without a traceable basis can force removal or re-substantiation long after the shop that did the work has moved on.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Rebuild the card set
Assemble every non-routine card from the reviewed events and reconcile the count to the register.
Trace each closure
Follow each card from finding to disposition to corrective action to sign-off.
Check configuration feedback
Confirm cards that changed the airframe fed the change into the configuration record.
List what does not hold
Record cards missing a disposition, a configuration entry, or a valid deferral, with the evidence each needs.
What the buyer receives
- A supported exception list naming each card that does not hold and why
- A source map tying every relied-on closure to its card and disposition
- A closure plan for the cards that still need evidence or a documented deferral
Who uses the output
- Records teams clearing the defect history before a redelivery or induction
- Asset managers pricing the open-item exposure a tail carries out of a check
- Buyers confirming that reported closures rest on evidence rather than signatures
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The card review runs after a check has generated the non-routine work and before the tail is presented for transfer or induction. Its exception list feeds remediation while the shop and engineering trail is still warm, and its source map becomes part of the evidence a redelivery binder or data room has to carry.
Aircraft-specific considerations
The 737 MAX carries heavy software and avionics part-number content, so a non-routine card that swapped a line-replaceable unit or reloaded a load can change the recorded configuration in ways a card for a purely mechanical repair would not. Cards from this family are checked against the delivery-to-operator baseline so a modification embodied under one card is not lost when the next card supersedes the same zone.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
The same card set can face an FAA reviewer working from the operator's program and an EASA CAMO applying continuing-airworthiness expectations, so the review notes where a closure that satisfies one system needs additional evidence for the other rather than assuming the card is portable.
Regulatory limits
The review reads the cards and traces their closures against the evidence on file. It does not make an airworthiness determination, approve the underlying repair, or grant any release or acceptance on an authority's behalf.
What this review does not cover
- Re-performing or inspecting the maintenance a card recorded
- Issuing a release certificate or approving a disposition
- Deciding which open items a counterparty will accept
Specific to this review
- Non-routine cards close at the end of a slot under schedule pressure, so a missing disposition is more common on the last cards raised than the first.
- On the 737 MAX a card that reloaded software or swapped an avionics unit can move the configuration baseline, so those cards are traced further than a mechanical repair card.
- A deferral that was never logged reads in the records as a closure, which is why deferred remainders are separated from genuine closures rather than trusted from the sign-off.
Sources
U.S. Government (eCFR). Maintenance recordkeeping content and approval-for-return-to-service requirements, including 43.9, 43.11, and Appendix B.
Federal Aviation Administration. FAA guidance on making and keeping maintenance records and acceptable recordkeeping practices.
European Union / EASA. Continuing airworthiness, maintenance records, CAMO responsibilities, and the airworthiness review process in the EASA system.
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.
Frequently asked questions
Why trace a card that already carries a sign-off?
A sign-off says the work was signed for, not that the disposition behind it is on file or that a configuration change was recorded. The trace confirms the closure rests on evidence a later reviewer would accept, which is exactly what a buyer or CAMO tests.
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.