Task-card records
Airbus A220 family task-card evidence records review
This review checks that the closed task cards for a maintenance event on an Airbus A220 family aircraft actually evidence the work the program called for. It is run for lessors, airlines, operators, and management teams after a check, before a transaction, or when a closed card set has never been verified against the program that generated it. The work reconciles routine cards, sign-offs, inspection stamps, and the maintenance instructions each card references against the tasks the program required. You receive a supported exception list of cards that do not close cleanly, a source map from card to instruction, and a closure plan for the tail.
When this review is needed
- A check has closed and the card set has to be verified before the event is filed as complete.
- A buyer wants the last check's cards reconciled to the program tasks they were meant to satisfy.
- A card references a maintenance instruction revision that the file does not actually contain.
- An inspection stamp is missing on a card that required independent inspection.
The problem
A closed card set is the evidence that a check was actually done, but a card can close on a sign-off while the instruction it references was a superseded revision, or an inspection stamp the task required is absent. The card carries a signature and a date, which reads as complete, so no one checks whether the card maps to a program task and whether every required sign-off and stamp is present. The gaps sit quietly in the package until a buyer or an auditor opens the individual cards.
What gets reviewed
- Routine cards reconciled to the program tasks they were issued against
- Sign-offs present and complete for each card in the set
- Inspection stamps confirmed where a task required independent inspection
- Referenced maintenance instructions checked for the correct revision
- Card set reconciled to the check package it belongs to for completeness
- Cards flagged where a sign-off, stamp, or instruction reference is missing or wrong
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 routine card maps to a task the program required for the event
- Every card carries the sign-off its completion needed
- An inspection stamp is present on each card that called for independent inspection
- The maintenance instruction a card references is the revision in effect at the time
- The card set matches the check package with no missing or extra cards
Evidence normally required
- The closed task-card set for the maintenance event
- The program task list the check was generated from
- The maintenance instructions referenced by the cards, with revision history
- The check package or work order the cards belong to
- Any independent inspection requirements applicable to the tasks
Common discrepancies
- A card closed against a superseded revision of the instruction it references
- A task card missing the independent inspection stamp its task required
- A card in the set with no corresponding program task behind it
- A program task the package required with no card in the closed set to evidence it
What is at stake
A card that references the wrong instruction revision leaves the task's completion in question, and a missing inspection stamp on a card that required one can put the whole event's acceptance in doubt. At a sale those gaps become findings the current owner has to close, and re-establishing that a task was properly done long after the check is far harder than catching an incomplete card while the crew that signed it is still reachable.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Map cards to tasks
Reconcile each card to the program task it was issued against and check the set both ways.
Verify sign-offs and stamps
Confirm each card carries its sign-off and every required independent inspection stamp.
Check instruction revisions
Confirm each referenced maintenance instruction is the revision in effect at the time of the check.
Flag and sequence closure
List cards that do not close cleanly and lay out completion or re-evidence for the tail.
What the buyer receives
- A supported exception list of cards that do not close cleanly against the program
- A source map from each card to its program task and referenced instruction
- A closure plan to complete or re-evidence the flagged cards for the tail
Who uses the output
- Records teams verifying a check package before it is filed as complete
- Continuing-airworthiness staff confirming required inspections were signed
- Asset and buyer teams reading check completeness into the value of the tail
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The task-card review is where the maintenance program becomes evidence. It confirms the cards a check produced actually satisfy the program tasks and carry every required sign-off, so a program review has completed events to rest on and a buyer sees checks that close rather than a package that merely looks full.
Aircraft-specific considerations
A220 check packages reference a task structure tied to the type's maintenance review board output, so a card that cites a maintenance instruction has to point to the revision current for the tail at the time of the check. Because the fleet is young, the referenced instructions have not yet been through many revisions, which makes a wrong-revision reference easier to catch but no less important, since a mis-referenced card leaves the task's completion unproven. The review checks revision currency card by card.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
Independent inspection and sign-off conventions differ between FAA and EASA maintenance systems, so a card set built under one operator's procedures may present sign-offs and stamps the receiving system reads differently. The review notes where a card's evidence will need mapping to the receiving system's expectations on a transition.
Regulatory limits
The review reconciles the closed cards to the program and their referenced instructions. It does not perform or re-perform the tasks, sign off any card, or accept the check. Confirming a card carries its sign-off is an evidence check, not certification that the underlying work was correct.
What this review does not cover
- Performing or re-performing any maintenance task
- Signing off cards or providing inspection stamps
- Any airworthiness or check-acceptance decision
Specific to this review
- A signed card reads as complete, which is exactly why a wrong-revision reference or a missing stamp goes unnoticed.
- A missing independent inspection stamp on a required task can put the whole event's acceptance in question.
- The set has to reconcile both ways: no card without a task, and no required task without a card.
- On a young fleet the referenced instructions have few revisions, so a wrong-revision reference is a clear signal a card was not closed against the current instruction.
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
Every card is signed. What could still be wrong?
A signature closes the card but does not confirm it maps to a program task, references the current instruction revision, and carries every required inspection stamp. The review checks each of those and reconciles the set to the check package both ways, so a card citing a superseded revision or missing a required stamp is caught before the event is filed as complete.
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.