AD compliance
Boeing 787 family Airworthiness Directive status records review
This review tests the Airworthiness Directive status of a specific Boeing 787 by checking, for each directive, whether it applies, what method of compliance was chosen, and whether the accomplishment evidence actually supports the recorded position. It is run for a lessor, operator, or buyer who needs the AD status list to hold up against source records rather than tracking-system entries alone. The work covers the systems-heavy 787 directives, including software-driven and configuration-dependent ADs, where applicability turns on part numbers and load standards. You receive a reconciled AD status list, a supported exception list, and a closure plan for this tail.
When this review is needed
- A 787 is under offer and the buyer needs the AD status list confirmed against accomplishment evidence.
- The aircraft is moving to a new operator whose configuration changes the applicability of some directives.
- A software or systems AD turns on a part number and the recorded compliance needs checking against the installed standard.
- A lease return requires each directive shown as complied with by the correct method, evidenced from source.
The problem
On a 787 the AD picture is entwined with configuration. A directive applies only to a certain software load or electrical standard, so the tracking-system entry that says complied means nothing until the installed part number is checked. Accomplishment is recorded against a work package that references a service bulletin at a superseded revision, or a method of compliance is claimed that the aircraft's configuration does not actually satisfy. The status list looks disciplined until each entry is asked which standard it was assessed against.
What gets reviewed
- Each directive assessed for applicability against the installed configuration and part numbers
- Method of compliance for each AD checked against what the configuration supports
- Accomplishment evidence traced to the work package and the correct service bulletin revision
- Recurring-AD intervals and next-due points confirmed against the tracking system
- Software and systems ADs checked against the installed load and load standard
- Superseded and terminating actions confirmed to close the directives they replace
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
- Applicability for each directive is assessed against this serial number's configuration, not the fleet
- Accomplishment evidence names the work package and the service bulletin at the correct revision
- The claimed method of compliance is one the installed configuration actually satisfies
- Recurring intervals and next-due points agree between the AD list and the tracking system
- Terminating actions are shown to close the directives they supersede
Evidence normally required
- The current AD status list for the serial number
- The configuration and software load status, with installed part numbers
- Accomplishment records and the work packages behind each complied directive
- Service bulletin references at the revisions used for compliance
- The recurring-task tracking data for open and repeating directives
Common discrepancies
- A configuration-dependent directive marked not applicable that the installed standard brings into scope
- Accomplishment recorded against a superseded service bulletin revision
- A method of compliance claimed that the aircraft's configuration does not support
- Recurring-AD next-due points that disagree between the status list and the tracking system
What is at stake
An AD position that does not trace to applicability and accomplishment evidence is an open airworthiness exposure the moment it is challenged. On a configuration-dependent 787 directive, a wrong applicability call can mean either an unnecessary task or, worse, a directive treated as not applicable that the installed standard actually brings into scope, and a transaction priced on the tracking list inherits that error.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Fix the configuration first
Establish the installed software and electrical standard so applicability can be assessed against the real serial number.
Assess applicability
Test each directive against that configuration rather than a fleet-level applicability statement.
Trace accomplishment
Match each complied directive to its work package and the correct service bulletin revision.
Reconcile and sequence
Align intervals with the tracking system and order the evidence and re-assessments the tail needs.
What the buyer receives
- A reconciled AD status list tying each position to applicability and accomplishment evidence
- A supported exception list where compliance cannot be traced to source
- A closure plan sequencing the evidence and re-assessments needed for this tail
Who uses the output
- Asset managers pricing AD exposure into a purchase or return
- Continuing-airworthiness staff correcting applicability and compliance calls
- Records teams aligning the AD list with the tracking system and source evidence
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The AD-status review depends on a settled configuration and feeds the airworthiness-review and export work. Because 787 applicability turns on installed standards, this check usually runs after the configuration baseline is fixed, and its output becomes the AD position the downstream reviews and any authority submission rely on.
Aircraft-specific considerations
A 787 records set carries stronger configuration and systems-document emphasis, including software part numbers, electrical changes, and composite repair substantiation. AD applicability on this aircraft frequently depends on the installed software load and electrical standard, so the review checks directives against the configuration of this serial number rather than a fleet-level applicability statement.
Regulatory limits
This review reports whether the recorded AD status is supported by applicability and accomplishment evidence. It does not determine compliance on the authority's behalf, grant an alternative method of compliance, or issue an airworthiness determination on the aircraft.
What this review does not cover
- Accomplishment or physical embodiment of any directive
- Obtaining or approving an alternative method of compliance
- Issuing an airworthiness determination based on the AD position
Specific to this review
- On a 787, a directive's applicability can flip on a software load, so a not-applicable call is only as good as the load record behind it.
- Accomplishment recorded against a superseded service bulletin revision is a frequent defect, because the work was done but the reference drifted.
- The riskiest error is a configuration-dependent AD wrongly excluded, since it hides an open requirement rather than adding an unnecessary one.
Sources
U.S. Government (eCFR). The legal basis for issuing and enforcing Airworthiness Directives on U.S.-registered products.
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.
European Union / EASA. Continuing airworthiness, maintenance records, CAMO responsibilities, and the airworthiness review process in the EASA system.
Frequently asked questions
Why check applicability if the tracking system already lists the ADs?
Because on a 787 applicability depends on the installed configuration. A tracking-system entry reflects how the aircraft was assessed at some point, not necessarily against the current software and electrical standard. The review re-tests applicability against the real configuration so a directive is neither wrongly excluded nor unnecessarily carried.
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.