767 shop visits
Boeing 767 family engine shop-visit records review
This review verifies that a Boeing 767's engine shop-visit history is complete and that each build reconciles with the parts and life status now carried. It is run for a lessor, airline, or asset manager evaluating or transferring a specific 767 tail. The work assembles each shop-visit package, checks module build records, test-cell data, and release paperwork, and confirms the workscope and LLPs fitted at each event tie to the current status. You receive an event-by-event view of the shop-visit history, an exception list where a build cannot be reconciled, and a closure plan for the missing packages.
When this review is needed
- A 767's engines drive the deal value and the buyer wants each shop visit reconstructed and reconciled.
- A module build changed the LLPs fitted and the new configuration has to match the current status sheet.
- An engine changed hands between operators and one shop-visit package did not travel with it.
- Performance evidence supporting a post-visit release cannot be found for a past event.
The problem
Engine value rests on a clean shop-visit history, and on a 767 that history spans several visits across the airframe's life. Each package holds the workscope, the module builds, the parts fitted, and the release that put the engine back on wing, and a single missing package severs the chain between what the engine was and what it now claims to be. The status sheet keeps reading forward, but the build behind a given serial can go unproven.
What gets reviewed
- Each engine shop visit with its date, workscope, and reason for removal
- Module build records showing the parts and LLPs fitted at each event
- Test-cell and performance data supporting each post-visit release
- Release paperwork returning the engine to service after each visit
- The parts fitted at the last build reconciled against the current status
- Any shop visit whose package cannot be located logged as an open item
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 shop visit on the record has a package with workscope and build records behind it
- The LLPs and modules fitted at the last build match the current engine status sheet
- Test-cell data supports the performance claimed at each post-visit release
- Time and cycles since the last shop visit reconcile with the airframe utilization
- The release after each visit is present and consistent with the workscope performed
Evidence normally required
- The engine shop-visit history and the packages on file
- Module build records and disk sheets for each event
- Performance and test-cell data for post-visit releases
- The current engine status sheet with LLPs and life figures
- Engine logbooks with removal and installation history
Common discrepancies
- A shop-visit package missing for an event named on the engine history
- Module build records that disagree with the LLPs on the current status sheet
- A post-visit release with no test-cell data behind the performance claimed
- Time since last shop visit that does not reconcile with the airframe utilization
What is at stake
A shop visit that cannot be reconciled undercuts the LLP and life-status figures that ride on it, so a buyer discounts the engine to the evidence rather than the summary. Reconstructing a lost package means going back to a shop that may have changed hands, and the longer the gap sits the less likely the original test-cell data and build records can be recovered.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Sequence the visits
Lay out each shop visit on the engine history with its date, workscope, and reason for removal.
Reconstruct each package
Assemble the build records, test-cell data, and release for every event.
Reconcile to current status
Confirm the last build's parts and LLPs match the engine status sheet and airframe utilization.
Flag the missing
List events whose package cannot be located and the shop that could supply it.
What the buyer receives
- An event-by-event view of the shop-visit history with each package's status
- An exception list where a build or release cannot be reconciled
- A closure plan identifying the shop that can supply each missing package
Who uses the output
- Asset managers pricing the engine build and life status into the tail
- Records teams assembling the shop-visit evidence a buyer will require
- Fleet management confirming the on-wing configuration matches the last build
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Shop-visit history is the backbone of the engine records and it feeds the LLP trace and the life-status figures a transaction turns on. This review runs ahead of the diligence pack, and any package it finds missing routes into remediation while the shop that performed the visit can still be reached.
Aircraft-specific considerations
A 767 that has flown for decades carries several engine shop visits, and engines are often traded or leased separately from the airframe, so a package can be held by a party no longer connected to the tail. High engine value on this widebody makes an unreconciled build a material exposure rather than a filing detail.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
A 767 engine that has been released under different authorities across its visits carries paperwork from more than one system, and a move to a new register may require dual reference or supporting evidence on the last release. The review notes where a post-visit release will need additional documentation for the receiving authority.
Regulatory limits
The review reconstructs and reconciles the shop-visit history against the records. It does not perform or approve engine maintenance, release an engine to service, or make an airworthiness determination on any build.
What this review does not cover
- Physical inspection, borescope, or test of the engine
- Performing or approving any engine shop work
- Any airworthiness determination on the engine build
Specific to this review
- One missing shop-visit package can sever the chain between an engine's last build and the status it now claims.
- Engines on a 767 are frequently traded apart from the airframe, so a package can rest with a party no longer tied to the tail.
- Test-cell data is the evidence behind a post-visit release, and its absence leaves the release unsupported even when the engine runs well.
- The LLPs fitted at the last build are the anchor that ties the shop-visit history to the current life status.
Sources
U.S. Government (eCFR). Maintenance recordkeeping content and approval-for-return-to-service requirements, including 43.9, 43.11, and Appendix B.
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.
Federal Aviation Administration. Completion and use of FAA Form 8130-3, Authorized Release Certificate, for new and used parts.
European Union / EASA. Continuing airworthiness, maintenance records, CAMO responsibilities, and the airworthiness review process in the EASA system.
Frequently asked questions
Can the engine records be relied on if one shop-visit package is missing?
Not fully. The missing package leaves a gap in the build chain, so the parts and life status downstream of it are only as good as the summary that carried them forward. Recovering the package from the shop that performed the visit restores the trace, and where it cannot be recovered the gap is stated as a priced exposure.
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.