787 task cards
Boeing 787 family closed task-card records review
This review inspects the closed task-card set from a specific Boeing 787 family aircraft's inputs to confirm each card was completed, signed, and tied to the instruction it flowed from. A records specialist runs it for the party assembling a check package or verifying a work event, often at heavy-check exit or before a redelivery. It reads routine cards, sign-offs and inspection stamps, and the maintenance instructions each card references, then checks the set against the work the program called for. You receive an exception list of incomplete or unlinked cards, a source map from card to instruction, and a closure plan for the missing sign-offs.
When this review is needed
- A heavy check just closed and the card set has to be verified complete before the aircraft returns to service.
- A redelivery binder is being assembled and the buyer will sample the closed cards.
- Sign-offs or inspection stamps are missing on cards that the program required.
- A card references a revision of an instruction that the records do not show as effective.
The problem
A 787 heavy check produces thousands of routine cards, each needing a mechanic sign-off, an inspector stamp where required, and a live link to the maintenance instruction it came from. In the rush of a check exit, a card can be signed but not stamped, closed against a superseded instruction revision, or filed without the reference that proves it belonged to the program at all. A single unlinked card is easy to miss in the volume and surfaces later as an unexplained hole in the check.
What gets reviewed
- Routine cards reconciled against the tasks the program required for the check
- Mechanic sign-offs and inspector stamps present where each card and RII step demands
- The maintenance instruction and revision each card references checked as effective
- Cards raised against findings linked to their non-routine follow-up
- Deferred or carried-forward cards accounted for in the exit status
- The completed set tied to the return-to-service entry for the check
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
- Every card the program required for the check is present in the closed set
- Sign-offs and inspection stamps are complete on each card and on RII steps
- Each card references an instruction revision that was effective at the time of work
- Cards that generated findings link to the non-routine cards that dispositioned them
- The card set reconciles to the return-to-service entry for the check
Evidence normally required
- The closed task-card set from the check under review
- The work scope or task list the program required for the check
- The maintenance instructions and their revision history referenced by the cards
- Non-routine cards raised against findings during the check
- The return-to-service documentation for the check
Common discrepancies
- A required-inspection card signed by the mechanic but missing the inspector stamp
- A routine card closed against a superseded revision of its maintenance instruction
- A card present in the work scope but absent from the closed set
- A finding-raised card with no non-routine follow-up linking its disposition
What is at stake
An incomplete or unlinked card leaves the check package unable to prove the work was done to the required instruction, which weakens the return-to-service basis and gives a buyer a reason to sample deeper. Missing inspection stamps on required-inspection items are particularly hard to remedy after the workforce has dispersed, and reconstructing the link to a superseded instruction can be slow when the revision is no longer in circulation.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Set the required scope
Establish the task list the program required for the check to measure the closed set against.
Check completeness
Confirm each required card is present with the sign-offs and inspection stamps it needs.
Verify the links
Tie each card to the effective revision of its instruction and to any non-routine follow-up.
List the gaps
Record incomplete or unlinked cards and sequence the sign-offs and links to recover.
What the buyer receives
- An exception list of incomplete, unlinked, or missing cards from the check
- A source map tying each card to its maintenance instruction and revision
- A closure plan for the sign-offs to obtain and the instruction links to restore
Who uses the output
- Records teams closing out a check package before return to service or redelivery
- Continuing-airworthiness leads confirming the check was accomplished to the program
- Buyer and lessor teams sampling the closed card set for completeness
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The closed card set is the evidence that a check was actually performed, so this review sits between the check exit and the return-to-service entry that depends on it. Its findings feed the non-routine review where cards generated defects, and its completeness check underwrites the redelivery binder a buyer will sample.
Aircraft-specific considerations
787 checks lean heavily on systems and zonal tasks tied to the aircraft's electrical architecture and software configuration, so a card can reference an instruction whose effectivity depends on the configuration state, not just the check. Composite structural cards carry inspection methods that differ from a metal airframe, which changes what a complete sign-off looks like. The review is scoped to the actual checks this serial number has flown through rather than a family task list.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
Required-inspection and independent-inspection conventions differ between an FAA repair-station environment and an EASA Part-145 one, so the review notes where a card's inspection evidence has to be read against the receiving system's expectations.
Regulatory limits
The review confirms the task cards are complete and traceable to their instructions. It does not perform or re-perform any task, sign off or stamp any card, or make an airworthiness determination on the check or the aircraft.
What this review does not cover
- Performing or re-performing any task behind a card
- Signing, stamping, or otherwise closing any card
- Any airworthiness determination on the check or the aircraft
Specific to this review
- A missing inspector stamp on a required-inspection item is one of the hardest card defects to remedy, because the qualified inspector who saw the work has usually moved on.
- A card closed against a superseded instruction revision looks complete until the effectivity is checked, so the revision link matters as much as the sign-off.
- In a heavy check the volume of cards means a single unlinked card hides easily, so the reconciliation runs against the required work scope rather than the pile of cards on hand.
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
Why check the instruction revision on each card and not just the sign-off?
A card signed and stamped still has to have been worked to the instruction revision that was effective at the time. A card closed against a superseded revision may not reflect the work the program actually required, and that gap only shows up when the reference is checked against the revision history.
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.