767 maintenance program
Boeing 767 family maintenance program records review
This review checks that a Boeing 767's maintenance program history is documented and that the current status reflects the approved program actually in force. It is run for a lessor, airline, or asset manager working a specific 767 tail through a transition or a records review. The work traces the program revisions applied, any task escalations and bridging analyses, and the source documents behind them, then flags where the recorded status has drifted from the approved program. You receive a program status reconciled to source, an exception list of unsupported escalations or intervals, and a closure plan for the gaps.
When this review is needed
- A 767 is moving to a new operator and the incoming CAMO has to bridge its program to their own.
- Task intervals were escalated over the years and the approval basis for each escalation has to be confirmed.
- A bridging analysis from an earlier transition was never reconciled against the tasks actually performed.
- A buyer wants the current maintenance status tied to the approved program document in force.
The problem
A maintenance program status is only meaningful against the approved program it is measured on. On a 767 that has served under several operators, the program has been revised, escalated, and bridged, and each change should trace to an approval and a source document. When an interval on the status list cannot be tied back to an approved revision, the status looks current but rests on a basis nobody can produce.
What gets reviewed
- The approved maintenance program revisions applied to the tail over its life
- Task escalations with the approval basis behind each interval change
- Bridging analyses from prior transitions reconciled to the tasks performed
- The current maintenance status measured against the approved program in force
- Source-document references supporting each program-driven interval
- Intervals or escalations lacking a traceable basis logged as open items
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 program revision applied to the tail traces to an approved source document
- Every task escalation carries an approval basis appropriate to the change
- The current status measures against the approved program actually in force
- Bridging analyses from prior transitions reconcile with the tasks recorded as done
- Intervals on the status list tie back to a specific program reference, not a summary
Evidence normally required
- The approved maintenance program and its revision history for the tail
- Task escalation approvals and their supporting analyses
- Bridging analyses from prior operator transitions
- The current maintenance status or forecast
- Source documents referenced for the program-driven intervals
Common discrepancies
- A task interval on the status list with no traceable approved program reference
- An escalation applied without the approval basis behind it on file
- A bridging analysis that does not reconcile with the tasks actually performed
- A program revision applied to the tail that cannot be tied to an approved source
What is at stake
An escalated interval without an approval basis can force a task back to a shorter interval, pulling forward maintenance the owner did not plan for. At a transition the incoming CAMO cannot bridge cleanly from an unsupported program, and unresolved bridging gaps surface at the first check under the new program as tasks that were never mapped.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Establish the approved program
Identify the maintenance program revisions in force across the tail's history.
Trace the escalations
Confirm each interval change carries an approval basis and a supporting analysis.
Reconcile bridging and status
Check prior bridging analyses against the tasks performed and the current status.
List the unsupported
Flag escalations, intervals, and bridging gaps with no traceable basis and the source to close each.
What the buyer receives
- A program status reconciled to the approved source documents
- An exception list of unsupported escalations, intervals, or bridging gaps
- A closure plan naming the source that can supply each missing approval
Who uses the output
- Continuing-airworthiness teams bridging the tail onto a new program
- Asset managers reading maintenance exposure into the value of the tail
- Records teams assembling the program evidence a buyer or CAMO will request
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The program review sets the frame the AD, task-card, and inspection status are all measured against, so it runs early in a transition. Its exception list drives the bridging work the incoming CAMO depends on, and unsupported intervals route into remediation before they reach the first check under the new program.
Aircraft-specific considerations
A 767 that has served under several operators has carried more than one maintenance program and a history of escalations and bridging, so the program trail is layered. Long service life means the earliest approved revisions may sit only in an archive, and the reconciliation has to reach back through those to confirm the current status stands on an approved basis.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
A 767 moving between an FAA operator's program and an EASA CAMO has to bridge from one approval framework to another, and an escalation approved in one system is not automatically carried in the other. The review notes where a program element will need re-approval or a bridging analysis for the receiving authority.
Regulatory limits
The review reconciles the recorded status against the approved program and its source documents. It does not approve a maintenance program, grant a task escalation, or make an airworthiness determination on the tail.
What this review does not cover
- Authoring, revising, or approving a maintenance program
- Granting or approving any task escalation
- Any airworthiness determination on the aircraft
Specific to this review
- An escalated interval without an approval basis can revert to a shorter interval, pulling planned maintenance forward.
- A 767 under several operators carries a layered program history, so bridging analyses have to reconcile against tasks actually done rather than the intervals claimed.
- The current status is only meaningful against the approved program in force, so an interval that cannot be tied to a revision rests on nothing verifiable.
- The earliest approved revisions on a long-served tail often sit only in an archive and have to be reached to confirm today's status.
Sources
U.S. Government (eCFR). Air carrier maintenance recordkeeping and retention requirements under Part 121.
U.S. Government (eCFR). Maintenance recordkeeping and retention requirements for Part 135 operators.
European Union / EASA. Continuing airworthiness, maintenance records, CAMO responsibilities, and the airworthiness review process in the EASA system.
International Civil Aviation Organization. International standards for aircraft operation, including maintenance program and recordkeeping expectations.
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 does an escalated interval need its approval basis on file?
An escalation extends a task interval only under an approved basis. Without that approval on file, the extended interval is unsupported, and an incoming operator or auditor may require the task to revert to its shorter interval, which pulls maintenance forward and changes the cost picture.
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.