767 task cards
Boeing 767 family task-card evidence records review
This review confirms that the task cards behind a Boeing 767's completed checks carry the sign-offs, stamps, and referenced instructions that prove the work was done and closed. It is run for a lessor, airline, or asset manager working a specific 767 tail through diligence or a records clean-up. The work samples and verifies the closed task-card set against the check packages, confirming each card's completion, inspection sign-off, and link to an approved instruction. You receive a task-card completeness view, an exception list of cards with missing or inconsistent sign-offs, and a closure plan for the gaps.
When this review is needed
- A 767 heavy check just closed and the buyer wants the task-card set verified before the check package is relied on.
- A card claims a task complete but its inspection sign-off or stamp is missing.
- A prior check package arrived from another operator and its task cards have to be reconciled to the work claimed.
- An auditor sampled the closed cards and found inconsistent completion entries.
The problem
A task card is the proof that a maintenance task actually happened. On a 767 heavy check the card set runs to thousands of items, and completeness is measured card by card: mechanic sign-off, inspector stamp where required, and a reference to the instruction the work was done against. A card marked complete with a missing stamp, or one that references a superseded instruction, undercuts the check it belongs to, and the volume makes those cards easy to lose in the package.
What gets reviewed
- The closed task-card set for the checks under review, sampled and verified
- Mechanic completion sign-offs on each sampled card
- Inspector stamps where the task requires an inspection sign-off
- The referenced maintenance instruction and its revision for each card
- Non-routine findings linked back to the cards that raised them
- Cards with missing, inconsistent, or unreferenced sign-offs 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 sampled card carries a completion sign-off appropriate to the task
- Tasks requiring inspection show the inspector stamp or dual sign-off on the card
- The instruction referenced on the card matches a revision valid at the time of work
- A card that generated a non-routine finding links to its disposition and closure
- The closed card set accounts for the tasks the check package claims complete
Evidence normally required
- The closed task-card set or check package for the events under review
- The check work scope defining the tasks that should be present
- The maintenance instructions and revisions referenced on the cards
- Non-routine findings raised against task cards
- Any prior audit finding on task-card completion
Common discrepancies
- A card marked complete with the inspector stamp missing on an inspection task
- A card referencing a maintenance instruction revision not current at the time of work
- A task the check scope requires with no corresponding closed card in the package
- A card that raised a non-routine finding with no link to its disposition
What is at stake
A check package with cards that do not close cleanly leaves the maintenance status resting on work that cannot be fully proven, which a buyer discounts and an auditor questions. Reconstructing a sign-off after the fact is often impossible once the mechanics and inspectors have moved on, so the card either closes with the evidence it has or it carries as a gap.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Scope the card set
Establish the tasks the check package should contain and pull the closed cards against it.
Verify completion
Confirm sign-offs, inspection stamps, and referenced instructions on the sampled cards.
Reconcile the findings
Tie cards that raised non-routine items to their disposition and closure.
List the exceptions
Flag cards with missing or inconsistent evidence and the source that could close each.
What the buyer receives
- A task-card completeness view across the checks under review
- An exception list of cards with missing or inconsistent sign-offs
- A closure plan for the cards that can still be reconciled to evidence
Who uses the output
- Asset managers confirming a recent check will survive a buyer's sampling
- Records teams reconciling a check package received from another operator
- Continuing-airworthiness staff closing out a heavy-check exit
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Task-card verification proves the maintenance behind the status, so it feeds the check-package review that a heavy-check exit or a transaction depends on. Cards that do not close cleanly route into remediation while the shop that ran the check can still be reached, before the package is handed to a buyer.
Aircraft-specific considerations
A 767 heavy check produces a very large task-card set, and long-served tails have accumulated many checks under different operators, so card format and sign-off practice vary across the file. Freighter-converted tails add cards from the conversion work, which have to reconcile against the same completeness standard as the routine set.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
Sign-off and inspection-stamp conventions differ between an FAA operator and an EASA CAMO, so a 767 moving between systems carries cards under more than one practice. The review notes where a card's completion evidence follows a convention the receiving authority will want reconciled.
Regulatory limits
The review verifies that task cards carry the completion evidence they should and are internally consistent. It does not re-perform the tasks, sign off any card, or make an airworthiness determination on the check.
What this review does not cover
- Re-performing or inspecting the maintenance behind any card
- Signing off or closing any open task card
- Any airworthiness determination on the check
Specific to this review
- A 767 heavy check closes thousands of task cards, so completeness is measured by sampling and by whether the set accounts for the scope, not card by card end to end.
- A missing inspector stamp on an inspection task is the most common defect, and it is often impossible to reconstruct once the inspector has moved on.
- A card referencing a superseded instruction proves work against the wrong revision, which undercuts the task even when the sign-off is present.
- Cards that raised non-routine findings have to link to their disposition, or the check package leaves the finding unaccounted for.
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
How thorough is the task-card check on a large heavy-check package?
The set runs to thousands of cards, so the review confirms the package accounts for the check scope and samples cards across task types, weighting inspection and structural tasks. It also verifies that every card raising a non-routine finding links to its disposition, since those are where completeness most often breaks.
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.