737NG closed cards
Boeing 737NG task-card records review
A 737NG task-card records review examines the closed routine cards from a check and confirms each one is signed, stamped, and tied to the maintenance instruction it was worked from. It is for teams verifying that a Boeing 737NG check package is complete and defensible before they rely on it in a sale, lease, or induction. The review checks card sign-offs, inspection stamps, referenced revisions, and whether the closed set matches the work scope the operator claimed. You receive an exception list against the incomplete cards, a source map to the underlying instructions, and a plan to recover what is missing.
When this review is needed
- A recent 737NG check is being relied on for a redelivery and the closed cards have to be complete.
- A buyer's technical team wants to confirm the last heavy check was fully signed before pricing.
- A card set arrived scanned and out of order and someone must confirm nothing was left open.
- An inducting shop needs the prior check's cards proven before it opens the aircraft again.
The problem
A 737NG check produces thousands of cards, and a package can look complete while individual cards are missing a mechanic stamp, an inspector sign-off, or the revision they were worked from. Cards get scanned unsorted, dual-inspection items lose their second signature, and the reference on the card points at a manual revision that is not in the pack. Sorting a partial from a complete set by hand under a deadline is where errors get accepted.
What gets reviewed
- Presence of the mechanic sign-off and inspection stamp on every card in scope
- Second signatures on required inspection and dual-inspection items
- The manual reference on each card matched to the revision actually in the pack
- The closed card count reconciled against the work scope the check was billed for
- Deferred or carried-forward items on cards routed to the non-routine or deferral system
- Legibility and completeness of scanned cards against the original card index
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
- Every routine card in scope carries both the mechanic sign-off and the required inspection stamp
- Required-inspection items show the independent second signature the task calls for
- The instruction revision cited on the card is present in the package and effective on the work date
- The count of closed cards reconciles to the check work scope with no silent omissions
- Any card that raised a finding links to the non-routine or deferral record that carried it
Evidence normally required
- The complete closed task-card set from the check, in its original index order
- The work scope or check package definition the cards should satisfy
- The maintenance manual revisions the cards reference
- The shop's list of required-inspection items for the check
- The non-routine and deferral registers the cards route findings to
Common discrepancies
- Cards closed with a mechanic stamp but no inspector sign-off on a required item
- A card referencing a manual revision that is not included in the delivered pack
- Fewer closed cards than the billed work scope, with no note explaining the difference
- A card that raised a defect with no matching non-routine record showing the disposition
What is at stake
An unsigned or unreferenced card is a hole the next reviewer will find. If a dual-inspection item is missing its second stamp, the task cannot be shown as properly closed, and a buyer treats it as not done. Accepted at redelivery, these gaps travel with the aircraft and force the receiving operator to reaccomplish or reconstruct work that was already paid for.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Index the delivered set
Sort the scanned cards back into original order and reconcile the count against the check work scope.
Check every sign-off
Confirm mechanic and inspection signatures on each card and the second signature on required-inspection items.
Verify referenced data
Match each card's cited instruction revision to the data actually present in the package.
List and route recovery
Deliver the exception list and name who can supply each missing signature or reference.
What the buyer receives
- An exception list naming each incomplete card and the specific signature or reference it lacks
- A source map linking cards to the manual revisions and non-routine records they depend on
- A recovery plan identifying who can supply the missing sign-offs or references
Who uses the output
- Records teams confirming a check package before it anchors a redelivery
- Buyers' engineers deciding whether the last check can be relied on as closed
- Inducting shops that need the prior check proven before reopening the airframe
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Task cards are the routine backbone of a check, and this review pairs with the non-routine review that covers the findings those cards raised. Together they show a check as fully worked rather than merely delivered, which the program review then reconciles against the intervals that called the cards.
Aircraft-specific considerations
High-cycle 737NG airframes accumulate large check packages, and the volume alone hides individual gaps, so sampling is structured around required-inspection and structural cards rather than spread evenly. Cabin and avionics modifications embodied at a check often carry their own cards mixed into the routine set, and those reference STC or modification data that has to be present for the card to close. Repeat operators tend to reindex cards their own way, so the original index order is used to confirm nothing dropped out.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
A 737NG check worked under FAA rules and later reviewed for an EASA operator needs the card sign-offs read against both authorities' expectations for required-inspection independence. The review records which authority's shop approval the cards were closed under so the receiving side can judge acceptability rather than assume it.
Regulatory limits
The review reports whether the cards are complete and traceable as records. It does not re-certify the maintenance, issue a release to service, make an airworthiness determination, or replace the receiving operator's own acceptance of the completed check.
What this review does not cover
- Reaccomplishment of any task whose card is incomplete
- Physical reinspection of the work the cards describe
- Assessment of non-routine findings, which the non-routine review covers
Specific to this review
- On a 737NG check, missing second signatures on required-inspection items are the most common defect a card review surfaces, and they cannot be closed by the mechanic stamp alone.
- A card that cites a manual revision absent from the pack is unprovable even when signed, so the referenced data is checked, not just the signatures.
- The closed card count is reconciled to the billed scope because a package can look full while a subset of cards never made it into the scan.
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
Can you tell whether the work on the card was done correctly?
The review addresses the records, not the physical work. It confirms each card is signed, stamped, and tied to the instruction it was worked from. Whether the underlying maintenance was performed correctly is a physical-inspection question that sits outside a records review.
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.