Repair and alteration records
Airbus A220 family repair approval data records review
This review tests whether each repair and alteration on an Airbus A220 family aircraft rests on approved data and traces to a clean return to service. It is run for lessors, airlines, operators, and management teams before a transaction, after a damage event, or when the repair history has accumulated without a consolidated map. The work reconciles damage reports, repair dispositions, the approved data cited, and the return-to-service entries against a repair map for the tail. You receive a supported exception list of repairs lacking an approval basis, a source map per repair, and a closure plan.
When this review is needed
- A buyer wants every repair on the airframe mapped to an approved-data basis before pricing.
- A damage event was repaired and the disposition has to be reconciled to the data it cited.
- The tail is changing register and repairs approved under one authority need a basis the other accepts.
- Repair history has built up across operators with no consolidated repair map to read from.
The problem
A repair is only as good as the data behind it, and repair records tend to scatter across damage reports, dispositions, and return-to-service entries that were filed at different times by different shops. A repair can be recorded and signed off while the approved data it cites was never captured, or the disposition points to a basis that does not cover the actual damage. Without a repair map, no one can see how many repairs on the tail lack a traceable approval basis.
What gets reviewed
- Each repair and alteration mapped to its damage report and disposition
- Approved data cited by each repair confirmed present and applicable to the damage
- Return-to-service entries reconciled to the repair and its data basis
- Structural repairs checked against the repair map and effect on configuration
- Alterations distinguished from repairs and confirmed against an approval basis
- Repairs flagged where the approved-data reference is missing or does not cover the work
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 repair cites approved or acceptable data that covers the actual damage repaired
- The disposition on file matches the damage report it responds to
- A return-to-service entry follows from the repair and the data it relied on
- An alteration carries an approval basis appropriate to the change and jurisdiction
- The repair map accounts for every repair the records assert on the tail
Evidence normally required
- Damage reports and repair dispositions for the airframe
- The approved or acceptable data cited by each repair
- Return-to-service entries associated with the repairs
- Any structural repair map or damage chart maintained for the tail
- Configuration records where a repair or alteration affected them
Common discrepancies
- A repair signed off with no approved-data reference captured in the file
- A disposition that cites data not covering the extent of the actual damage
- An alteration recorded as a routine repair without an approval basis
- A structural repair missing from the map that the records reference elsewhere
What is at stake
A repair without traceable approved data can force re-substantiation or removal, and on a structural repair that is expensive and slow. At a sale it becomes a discount or a hold; on a register change a repair approved under one system may need a fresh basis before the other accepts it, and reconstructing a repair basis years after the work is far harder than confirming it when the disposition was filed.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Build the repair map
Consolidate every repair and alteration the records assert into one view for the tail.
Match data to damage
Confirm each repair cites approved data that covers the damage its disposition responds to.
Reconcile return to service
Tie each return-to-service entry to the repair and the data it relied on.
Flag and sequence
List repairs lacking a basis and lay out recovery or re-substantiation, weighting composite repairs.
What the buyer receives
- A supported exception list of repairs and alterations lacking a traceable approval basis
- A source map linking each repair to its data, disposition, and return-to-service entry
- A closure plan to recover the basis or re-substantiate the flagged repairs
Who uses the output
- Records teams consolidating repair history before a sale or a register change
- Engineering deciding how to treat a repair whose approved-data basis is missing
- Asset managers pricing the re-substantiation exposure the repair history carries
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The repair review resolves the approved-data layer that configuration validation and any structural assessment depend on. Its exception list drives recovery or re-substantiation while the tail is still available, and its repair map gives a buyer or a receiving authority a single view of every repair and the basis behind it.
Aircraft-specific considerations
A220 primary structure uses composite and metallic assemblies whose repairs draw on distinct approved-data sources, so a repair map for the tail has to distinguish which basis governs which repair. Because the fleet is young, most repair history is recent and recoverable, but a composite repair whose disposition does not capture its data reference is exactly the kind of item that is costly to re-substantiate later. The review weights attention toward those repairs.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
Repair and alteration approval bases differ between FAA and EASA, and a repair approved under one authority is not automatically accepted by the other. The review identifies repairs whose basis is valid for the tail's current register and those that will need a fresh or supplemental approval basis before a move to the other system.
Regulatory limits
The review reconciles repairs to the approved data on file. It does not develop or approve repair data, disposition damage, or return an aircraft to service. Flagging a repair without a basis identifies an evidence gap; it does not authorize the repair or its continued service.
What this review does not cover
- Developing or approving repair or alteration data
- Physical inspection or disposition of the damage or repairs
- Any airworthiness or return-to-service decision
Specific to this review
- Repair records scatter by design across damage reports, dispositions, and sign-offs, so a repair map is what makes missing bases visible.
- A composite repair with no captured data reference is among the most expensive items to re-substantiate after the fact.
- An alteration mislabeled as a routine repair escapes the approval scrutiny an alteration actually needs.
- A repair basis approved under one authority can require fresh substantiation before the other register accepts the tail.
Sources
U.S. Government (eCFR). Maintenance recordkeeping content and approval-for-return-to-service requirements, including 43.9, 43.11, and Appendix B.
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
The repairs are all signed off. Why check the approved data behind them?
A sign-off records that work was done, not that an approved-data basis was captured for it. The review maps each repair to the data its disposition cites and confirms that data covers the actual damage. A repair with no traceable basis can force re-substantiation later, which is far costlier than recovering the reference now.
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.