Task-card records
Boeing 737 MAX task-card evidence records review
This review works through the closed task-card set from a Boeing 737 MAX and confirms each card is a complete, self-supporting record of the work it closed. It runs after a check, before a transfer, or during a diligence pass, run by or for the party relying on the maintenance evidence. It covers the routine cards, the sign-offs and inspection stamps that closed them, and the maintenance instructions each card referenced. You receive an exception list per card, a source map from the card to the instruction it cited, and a closure plan for the cards whose evidence is incomplete.
When this review is needed
- A 737 MAX check just closed and the task-card set has to hold up before it feeds the status.
- A buyer will sample the closed cards and expect each to be complete and self-supporting.
- A card references an instruction revision that the file has to be able to produce.
- An inspection stamp is missing from a card that the program required a second signature on.
The problem
A task card is the smallest unit of maintenance evidence, and a check produces thousands of them, so the failures hide in volume. On a 737 MAX a card can be closed with a sign-off but no inspection stamp the program required, reference a maintenance instruction at a revision the file cannot produce, or leave a step blank that the sign-off implicitly claims complete. Each card reads fine in isolation, and the pattern only shows when the set is sampled against the program it was worked to.
What gets reviewed
- Routine task cards sampled against the program revision in use
- Sign-offs present and appropriate for the work each card closed
- Inspection stamps where the program required a second signature
- Maintenance instruction references and the revisions the file can produce
- Blank or incomplete steps on cards recorded as closed
- Card status reconciled to the task status computed from it
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 sampled card carries the sign-off appropriate to the work it closed
- An inspection stamp is present wherever the program required a second signature
- The maintenance instruction a card references is producible at the revision cited
- No step recorded as complete is left blank on a card shown closed
- The closed cards reconcile to the task status the program computed from them
Evidence normally required
- The closed task-card set from the check under review
- The program revision the cards were worked to
- The maintenance instructions the cards reference
- The task status the cards fed into
- Any non-routine cards raised against the routine set
Common discrepancies
- A card closed with a sign-off but missing the inspection stamp the program required
- A card referencing a maintenance instruction revision the file cannot produce
- A step left blank on a card otherwise recorded as complete
- A closed card whose status does not reconcile to the task it was meant to satisfy
What is at stake
A card missing a required inspection stamp is an incomplete record that a buyer or auditor will treat as work not properly closed, and reconstructing the missing signature after the fact is rarely possible. A card referencing an instruction revision the file cannot produce leaves the actual work performed unverifiable, which weakens the status the card feeds.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Sample against the program
Select cards across the closed set and check them against the program revision in use.
Test sign-offs and stamps
Confirm each card carries the sign-off and any inspection stamp the program required.
Resolve the references
Verify the maintenance instruction a card cites is producible at the revision named.
Report the exceptions
Deliver the per-card exception list, source map, and closure plan.
What the buyer receives
- An exception list per card graded by sign-off, stamp, and reference failure
- A source map from each card to the maintenance instruction it cited
- A closure plan for the cards whose evidence is incomplete
Who uses the output
- Asset managers testing whether the closed task-card set survives sampling
- Records teams recovering the instruction revisions the cards referenced
- Continuing-airworthiness teams reconciling card status to the task status
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Task cards are the primary evidence the task status is built from, so a card that is incomplete undermines the status computed above it. This review tests the closed set against the program it was worked to, and its exception list drives the sign-off and reference recovery a status the transaction relies on depends on.
Aircraft-specific considerations
On the 737 MAX, a card that references a maintenance instruction has to cite the revision valid for the configuration the aircraft embodies, because a modification can change which instruction applies. Cards touching modified systems are where a reference most often points to a superseded instruction, so those are sampled against the current configuration rather than the delivered baseline.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
Sign-off and inspection-stamp expectations differ between an FAA and an EASA maintenance system, so a 737 MAX whose cards were closed under one system is checked for whether the receiving operator's program will accept the closures as recorded.
Regulatory limits
This review confirms the task-card evidence is complete and traceable to the instruction it cited. It does not sign off a task, return the aircraft to service, or make any airworthiness determination.
What this review does not cover
- Signing off or re-accomplishing any task card
- Returning the aircraft to service
- Any airworthiness determination on the aircraft
Specific to this review
- A check produces thousands of cards, so task-card failures hide in volume and only show when the set is sampled against the program.
- A missing inspection stamp is rarely recoverable after the fact, so it becomes a permanent mark against how the work was closed.
- On the 737 MAX, a card must cite the instruction revision valid for the embodied configuration, so a reference can be present yet wrong for the modification standard.
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
The cards are all closed and signed. What does sampling them add?
A closed card can still miss an inspection stamp the program required or reference an instruction revision the file cannot produce. Those failures do not show on any single card; they show when the set is sampled against the program it was worked to, which is what a buyer will do.
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.