Airbus A220 family non-routine closure records review

When this review is needed

• A check has closed and the non-routine register has to be confirmed clear before the event is filed.
• A buyer wants each defect raised at the last check traced to its disposition and sign-off.
• A finding was dispositioned to be deferred and the deferral was never tracked to resolution.
• The register carries corrective-action entries that reference data the file does not contain.

The problem

Non-routine findings are where a check meets the actual condition of the aircraft, and each one has to travel from a defect card, through an engineering disposition, to a corrective action and a final sign-off. That chain crosses several hands, and a link can drop: a disposition that was never executed, a corrective action closed without its supporting data, a deferral that quietly never came back. The register shows the finding was raised, but whether it truly closed is a separate trace that no one runs until the file is scrutinized.

What gets reviewed

• Each non-routine finding traced from its defect card to a documented closure
• Engineering dispositions matched to the findings they respond to
• Corrective-action entries confirmed present and supported by their data
• Deferred findings tracked to resolution or a controlled open status
• Final sign-offs reconciled to the disposition and corrective action for each finding
• Findings flagged where the chain from defect to closure is broken

What gets validated

• Every finding on the register carries a disposition that addresses it
• Each corrective action is supported by the data its disposition required
• A final sign-off closes each finding that the register shows resolved
• A deferred finding is tracked to a resolution or a controlled open item
• No finding on the register is left with a disposition but no evidence of execution

Evidence normally required

• The non-routine register for the maintenance event
• Defect cards and the findings they raised
• Engineering dispositions responding to the findings
• Corrective-action entries and the data they relied on
• Deferral records and any open-item tracking for the tail

Common discrepancies

• A disposition on the register with no evidence the corrective action was carried out
• A corrective action closed without the data its disposition called for
• A deferred finding that dropped off the register and was never resolved
• A defect card raised at the check with no disposition recorded against it

What is at stake

A non-routine finding that never closed leaves an open condition carried on the aircraft with no documented resolution, which a buyer treats as an unquantified defect. A deferred item lost off the register can come due long after anyone remembers it, and reconstructing what a disposition intended and whether it was carried out gets harder the longer the finding sits, especially once the engineering staff who raised it have moved on.

How the work runs

What the buyer receives

• A supported exception list of findings whose chain to closure is broken
• A source map from each defect through disposition and action to sign-off
• A closure plan to resolve or re-evidence the open findings on the tail

Who uses the output

• Records teams confirming the register is clear before the event is filed
• Continuing-airworthiness staff resolving deferred findings still carried open
• Asset and buyer teams reading unresolved defects into the value of the tail

How the work fits into the transaction or program

The non-routine review closes the loop the task-card review opens, following the findings a check surfaced through to a documented resolution. It confirms the aircraft carries no open condition without a disposition, so a completed check package holds together and a buyer inherits a register that is genuinely clear rather than merely full of entries.

Aircraft-specific considerations

A220 non-routine work often engages composite structure and integrated avionics, where an engineering disposition may cite approved repair data or a configuration change rather than a simple rectification. Those dispositions are the ones most likely to close without their supporting data captured, because the corrective action references material held elsewhere. Because the fleet is young, most non-routine history is recent and recoverable, so the review prioritizes the findings whose dispositions point to data the file does not yet contain.

Jurisdiction-specific considerations

Deferral and disposition authority differ between FAA and EASA maintenance systems, so a finding deferred under one operator's controls may need re-evaluation before a receiving operator on the other system accepts it as open. The review notes deferred findings whose basis will require rework on a transition.

Regulatory limits

The review traces findings to their documented closure. It does not disposition defects, perform corrective action, or accept a deferral. Confirming a corrective action is recorded is an evidence check, not certification that the rectification was airworthy.

What this review does not cover

• Dispositioning defects or performing corrective action
• Accepting, extending, or clearing a deferred finding
• Any airworthiness or defect-acceptance decision

Specific to this review

• A finding on the register proves the defect was raised, not that it closed; the two require separate traces.
• A deferred finding that drops off the register can come due long after anyone remembers it was open.
• Dispositions citing composite repair data or a configuration change are the ones most likely to close without their data captured.
• The chain from defect to closure crosses several hands, so the review checks each link rather than trusting the final sign-off alone.

Sources

Frequently asked questions

Relevant glossary terms

Related pages

Where this fits