Airworthiness review
Boeing 777 family airworthiness review evidence records review
This review examines the evidence a CAMO relied on to conduct and recommend the airworthiness review of a specific Boeing 777, and checks that open findings were tracked to closure. It is run for a lessor, operator, or buyer who needs the review certificate to rest on complete records rather than a signed summary. The work traces the review report to its underlying status data, confirms open findings were resolved, and tests whether the continued-airworthiness picture supported the recommendation. You receive a reconciled review file, a supported exception list, and a closure plan for the specific tail.
When this review is needed
- A 777 is being acquired and the buyer wants the last airworthiness review shown to rest on complete evidence.
- The aircraft is moving to a new CAMO that will take over the review cycle and needs the current position confirmed.
- Open findings from the last review need to be shown as tracked and closed before a transaction.
- A review recommendation is being relied on for a lease or sale and its underlying status data must be verified.
The problem
An airworthiness review report reads as a settled conclusion, but the value is in the status data behind it. The report may reference an AD position that has since moved, close a finding that no supporting record confirms, or rest on a status list the review team never reconciled to source. When a new CAMO or a buyer picks the aircraft up, they inherit the recommendation without the working papers, and any question about how it was reached has no answer in the file.
What gets reviewed
- The airworthiness review report traced to the status data it relied on
- Open findings from the review checked for tracked closure with evidence
- AD and SB positions in the review reconciled to the current compliance status
- LLP and life-limited status in the review checked against release and tracking records
- The review's configuration statement compared to the current configuration baseline
- Continued-airworthiness management records supporting the recommendation confirmed
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
- The review report's status figures reconcile to the underlying records rather than to a summary list alone
- Each open finding shows a closure entry with the evidence that resolved it
- AD positions cited in the review match the current compliance status for the serial number
- The configuration the review relied on agrees with the current baseline
- The CAMO records show the review was conducted on reconciled, current data
Evidence normally required
- The last airworthiness review report and its recommendation for the serial number
- The open-findings list from the review and any closure evidence
- Current AD and SB status and LLP status reports
- The configuration statement the review relied on
- CAMO working papers and status lists supporting the review
Common discrepancies
- A review finding closed with no supporting record in the file
- An AD position in the review report that has since moved and was never updated
- A status list relied on by the review that was never reconciled to source records
- A configuration statement in the review that no longer matches the current baseline
What is at stake
A review recommendation that cannot be traced to complete status data leaves the receiving party unable to defend the aircraft's standing if it is challenged. Open findings that were closed without evidence resurface during the next cycle, and a new CAMO taking over an unverified position may have to re-run the review from source, delaying the aircraft's use in a transaction.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Read the review as evidence
Take the review report and recommendation as claims to be tested against the records behind them.
Reconcile the status data
Trace the AD, LLP, and configuration figures in the review to current source records for the tail.
Close the open findings
Confirm each open finding has a closure entry with evidence, or flag it for action.
Consolidate the standing
Deliver a reconciled review file and a plan for the items that still need backing.
What the buyer receives
- A reconciled review file tying the recommendation to its supporting evidence
- A supported exception list where findings or status data lack backing
- A closure plan for the items needing evidence before the review can be relied on
Who uses the output
- Asset managers relying on the review position in a purchase or lease
- A new CAMO taking over the review cycle from a fixed, verified position
- Records teams closing the findings the review left open
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The airworthiness-review check sits above the individual status reviews and draws on all of them. It confirms that the AD, LLP, and configuration positions the review cited are real and current, so it usually runs after those checks are complete and consolidates them into a defensible standing for the tail.
Aircraft-specific considerations
A 777 records review depends on careful engine-module trace, structural-repair history, ETOPS-related evidence, and heavy-check work-package closure. An airworthiness review of this widebody should reflect the ETOPS approval and the heavy-check status, so the review confirms those elements were current in the report and not carried forward from an earlier cycle for this serial number.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
The airworthiness review construct is an EASA framework, and an FAA-registered 777 does not carry a review certificate in the same form. Where the aircraft is transitioning between the two systems, the review confirms which authority's evidence standard applies to the current position and flags what the receiving system will expect.
Regulatory limits
This review checks the records behind an airworthiness review. It does not conduct an airworthiness review, issue or recommend a review certificate, and it does not make an airworthiness determination on the aircraft.
What this review does not cover
- Conducting an airworthiness review or issuing a review certificate
- Physical inspection of the aircraft as part of a review
- Acting as the CAMO of record for the serial number
Specific to this review
- The weakest part of most review files is finding closure: findings are recorded as resolved without the record that resolved them.
- A review report is only as current as the status list behind it, and that list is often unreconciled to source at the moment the recommendation is signed.
- On a 777 crossing from FAA to EASA oversight, the review-certificate concept does not carry directly, so the receiving system's expectation has to be stated, not assumed.
Sources
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 the airworthiness of aircraft and the framework states use for type and continuing airworthiness.
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
Does this replace the airworthiness review itself?
No. The airworthiness review is conducted by an appropriately approved organization. This checks that the records behind such a review are complete and current, and that its open findings were tracked to closure, so the recommendation can be relied on in a transaction or handover.
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.