A320 family non-routines
Airbus A320 family non-routine card closure records review
This review checks that the non-routine cards raised during an Airbus A320 family check were dispositioned, corrected, and closed with the evidence each finding needed. It is run for a lessor, operator, or manager evaluating or handing over an A320 family asset after a heavy check. The work examines defect cards, engineering dispositions, corrective-action entries, and final sign-offs against the non-routine register, following each finding from discovery to close. You receive a supported exception list, a source map from register to disposition, and a closure plan for the specific serial number.
When this review is needed
- A heavy check raised findings and the register has to show every non-routine dispositioned and closed.
- A redelivery is contested on whether a discovered defect was corrected with approved data.
- A buyer needs assurance that the findings from the last check did not leave open corrective actions.
- An engineering disposition referenced repair data whose approval has not been confirmed.
The problem
Non-routine findings are where an A320 family check's real story lives, because they capture what the routine cards did not anticipate. A defect card can carry a disposition that references repair data the file cannot produce, a corrective action that closes without the final sign-off, or a finding on the register that has no card behind it at all. Under the pressure to release the aircraft, the weakest closures are the ones that slip through.
What gets reviewed
- Every non-routine on the register traced to a defect card and a disposition
- Engineering dispositions checked for the approved or acceptable data they rely on
- Corrective-action entries reconciled to the disposition that authorized them
- Final sign-offs confirmed for each closed non-routine
- Findings deferred beyond the check traced to a valid deferral basis
- The register reconciled to the cards for completeness in both directions
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 register line resolves to a defect card with a recorded disposition
- A disposition that calls for a repair cites approved or acceptable data on file
- The corrective action performed matches what the disposition authorized
- Every closed non-routine carries a final sign-off with mechanic and date
- Deferred findings trace to a deferral with a valid basis and interval
Evidence normally required
- The non-routine register for the check
- The defect cards and their engineering dispositions
- Approved or acceptable data referenced by the dispositions
- Corrective-action entries and final sign-offs
- The deferral log for findings carried beyond the check
Common discrepancies
- A disposition referencing repair data the file cannot produce
- A corrective action closed without the final sign-off recorded
- A register line with no defect card behind it
- A deferred finding with no valid deferral basis on file
What is at stake
A non-routine closed without approved data behind its disposition leaves an unsubstantiated repair on the airframe that a later review has to unwind. A finding left open on the register blocks acceptance at handover, and a corrective action without a final sign-off leaves the defect unresolved in substance no matter what the summary says.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Open the register
List every non-routine from the check and pull the defect card behind each line.
Trace the disposition
Confirm each disposition and the approved data it relies on for a repair.
Confirm the close
Match corrective actions and final sign-offs to what the disposition authorized.
List the exceptions
Flag findings closed without adequate evidence and plan their recovery.
What the buyer receives
- A supported exception list of non-routines that closed without adequate evidence
- A source map from each register line to its disposition and corrective action
- A closure plan to recover the missing dispositions, data, or sign-offs
Who uses the output
- Continuing-airworthiness teams confirming the check left no open corrective actions
- Records teams assembling the non-routine evidence for the redelivery binder
- Asset and buyer teams relying on the finding closure behind the check status
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The non-routine review completes the picture the task-card review starts, because the findings are what the routine cards discover, and any unsubstantiated disposition here becomes a repair the approval review has to unwind later. Its exception list drives recovery while the shop that raised the cards is still reachable, and the reconciled register anchors the check's discovered-defect story in the handover file.
Aircraft-specific considerations
A320 family aircraft raise a high volume of non-routines at heavy checks because of high-cycle fatigue findings and repeated cabin and systems reconfiguration, so the register is long and the weak closures are easy to lose in it. Structural findings tend to reference repair data that stays with the shop, so the review weights disposition traceability toward those items and toward the operator transitions where closures most often detach from their evidence.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
A disposition acceptable to the operator that raised it may reference repair data approved under a register the aircraft no longer flies under, so the review notes where a corrective action will need re-acceptance for the receiving authority rather than assuming the original disposition carries across.
Regulatory limits
The review confirms each non-routine was dispositioned and closed with traceable evidence. It does not approve a disposition, accept a corrective action on an authority's behalf, or determine that the finding was resolved to an airworthy condition.
What this review does not cover
- Performing or re-performing a corrective action
- Developing or approving the repair data behind a disposition
- Any airworthiness determination on the corrected aircraft
Specific to this review
- A non-routine disposition that references repair data the file cannot produce is an unsubstantiated repair hiding inside a closed finding.
- The register and the cards have to reconcile both ways, because a line with no card and a card with no line are different failures.
- Structural non-routines are where dispositions most often lose their approved-data reference across an operator change.
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
What makes a non-routine closure hold up at handover?
The register line has to trace to a defect card, the disposition has to reference approved or acceptable data for any repair, and the corrective action has to carry a final sign-off. A closure missing any of those reads as open in substance, and the review flags it so it can be corrected before the receiving party reviews the file.
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.