AD status
Boeing 737NG airworthiness directive status records review
This review confirms that the AD compliance status claimed for a specific Boeing 737NG is supported by applicability, method of compliance, and accomplishment evidence. It is run by or for the party taking on the aircraft, usually before a transfer or a program entry. It tests each AD on the status list against whether it applies to this serial number and configuration, how compliance was met, and the record that proves the work was done. You receive a supported AD position, a list of items with weak or missing accomplishment evidence, and the applicability calls that need engineering attention.
When this review is needed
- A 737NG is transferring and the receiving side needs the AD position supported rather than asserted.
- The status list shows an AD closed by a method of compliance the accomplishment record does not match.
- An aircraft is bridging between operator programs and its AD applicability has to be reconfirmed for the new one.
- Repetitive-inspection ADs are approaching a threshold and the last accomplishment needs to be located in the records.
The problem
An AD status list presents a clean column of closed items, but the value is in the evidence behind each one. On a 737NG that has served across operators, an AD can be marked complied against a service bulletin revision that was later superseded, closed by an alternative method the file does not substantiate, or listed as not applicable on an applicability call no one wrote down. The list looks finished, and the weak spots only show when someone asks for the accomplishment record.
What gets reviewed
- Applicability of each AD to this serial number, engine, and configuration
- The method of compliance recorded against each closed AD
- Accomplishment evidence supporting each AD marked complied
- Repetitive-inspection ADs with their last accomplishment and next threshold
- ADs closed by alternative method of compliance and the approval behind them
- Reconciliation of the AD status list against the accomplishment records and the airframe history
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 AD's applicability call matches this serial number, engine, and configuration
- A closed AD shows accomplishment evidence, not just a status entry on the list
- The recorded method of compliance matches the evidence and the correct service bulletin revision
- Repetitive ADs show the last accomplishment and a next-due consistent with current status
- An alternative method of compliance is supported by its approval, not asserted on the list
Evidence normally required
- The current AD status list for the aircraft
- Accomplishment records and work orders behind the closed items
- Service bulletin references and revisions cited as the method of compliance
- Any alternative method of compliance approvals applied
- Configuration and engine status needed to confirm applicability
Common discrepancies
- An AD marked complied with no accomplishment record behind the status entry
- Compliance recorded against a service bulletin revision later superseded
- An AD listed as not applicable on an applicability call the file never documented
- A repetitive inspection whose last accomplishment cannot be located in the records
What is at stake
An AD closed without accomplishment evidence is a finding waiting for the next audit, and on a repetitive inspection it can mean the aircraft is closer to a due threshold than the list suggests. A wrong applicability call is worse: an AD wrongly dismissed as not applicable leaves required work undone, and reconstructing the basis for these calls after a transfer, when the prior engineering is gone, is slow and expensive.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Confirm applicability
Test each AD against this serial number, engine, and configuration before trusting its status.
Trace accomplishment
Follow each complied AD to the accomplishment record and the correct service bulletin revision.
Check the repetitive items
Locate the last accomplishment and confirm the next threshold for every repetitive-inspection AD.
Report the exposure
Separate evidenced items from asserted ones and flag the applicability calls that need engineering.
What the buyer receives
- A supported AD position separating evidenced items from asserted ones
- A list of ADs with weak, missing, or superseded accomplishment evidence
- The applicability calls that need engineering attention before they can be relied on
Who uses the output
- Asset managers pricing the AD exposure the aircraft actually carries
- Continuing-airworthiness teams confirming the AD position before program entry
- Records teams closing the evidence gaps before the next audit or transfer
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The AD review is a core part of the records read on an incoming 737NG, and its output feeds the induction plan and the status the new program is built on. Where it finds a missing accomplishment record or a shaky applicability call, that item moves into remediation while the aircraft is still on the transfer, not after it has entered service.
Aircraft-specific considerations
The 737NG carries a heavy AD load across airframe structure and the CFM56 engine, and its structural repair and modification history drives the applicability of many of them. Bridging between airline programs is where AD applicability most often needs reconfirmation, because a call that held under one operator's configuration may not hold under the next.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
An aircraft under FAA ADs moving toward an EASA operator may face EASA ADs or state-of-design mandates the FAA file did not track. The review notes where the AD position built for one authority will need to be restated for the other.
Regulatory limits
The review reports what the AD records support and where the evidence is weak. It does not accomplish an AD, approve an alternative method of compliance, make an applicability determination on an authority's behalf, or find the aircraft airworthy.
What this review does not cover
- Accomplishing or signing off any airworthiness directive
- Approving an alternative method of compliance
- Any airworthiness determination on the aircraft
Specific to this review
- A closed status entry with no accomplishment record is the standard AD weakness, and it reads as complied until an auditor asks for the proof.
- A wrong not-applicable call is more dangerous than a missing record, because it leaves required work undone while the list shows nothing open.
- Compliance recorded against a superseded service bulletin revision can leave the aircraft short of the AD's actual requirement despite a clean-looking entry.
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
The status list shows every AD closed, so what is left to review?
A closed status is a claim until the accomplishment record supports it. This review tests each item's applicability to the specific tail, the method of compliance against the right service bulletin revision, and the evidence that the work was done, and it flags the applicability calls that were never written down.
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.