A320 family task cards
Airbus A320 family task-card records review
This review checks that the closed task-card set for an Airbus A320 family aircraft shows the routine work was accomplished, signed, and stamped against the correct instructions. It is run for a lessor, operator, or manager evaluating or handing over an A320 family asset after a check. The work examines routine cards, sign-offs, inspection stamps, and the maintenance instructions each card references, then confirms the cards reconcile to the check they belong to. You receive a supported exception list, a source map from card to instruction, and a closure plan for the specific serial number.
When this review is needed
- A heavy check just closed and the task-card set has to reconcile before the aircraft returns to service or hands over.
- A redelivery binder is being assembled and the routine cards must show every task closed and stamped.
- A buyer wants the check accomplishment supported by the cards behind the status.
- Cards from a shop appear complete but the referenced instruction revisions have not been checked.
The problem
An A320 family check closes hundreds of routine cards, and the reviewer's problem is not whether work happened but whether the paper proves it. A card can carry a sign-off without the inspection stamp a required item needs, reference an instruction revision that was superseded before the card closed, or belong to a check the status counts as complete while the card itself is missing. The volume hides the few cards that will not hold up.
What gets reviewed
- Routine cards reconciled to the check and workscope they belong to
- Sign-offs present for each card with the mechanic and date recorded
- Inspection stamps confirmed where a required inspection item calls for one
- Referenced maintenance instructions checked to the revision current at accomplishment
- Deferred or carried-forward cards traced to their disposition
- The closed set reconciled against the check's task list for completeness
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 carries a sign-off with the accomplishing mechanic and date
- Required inspection items show the independent inspection stamp the card calls for
- Referenced instruction revisions were current when the card was signed off
- Every card on the check task list is present in the closed set or accounted for
- Carried-forward items trace to a deferral record with a disposition
Evidence normally required
- The closed task-card set from the check or workscope
- The check task list the cards are drawn from
- The maintenance instructions the cards reference, with revision status
- The deferral or carry-forward log for the check
- The return-to-service entry for the check
Common discrepancies
- A routine card signed off without the inspection stamp a required item needs
- A card referencing an instruction revision superseded before it closed
- A card the check status counts as complete but that is missing from the set
- A carried-forward task with no deferral record behind it
What is at stake
A card that lacks a required stamp or a valid instruction reference leaves the task open in substance even where the status shows it closed. At handover the receiving party will not accept the check on an incomplete set, and reconstructing a missing card after the shop has released the aircraft is slow and sometimes impossible.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Scope to the check
Tie the closed card set to the check task list it was generated from for the tail.
Verify each close
Confirm sign-offs, required-item stamps, and instruction references card by card.
Reconcile completeness
Match the set against the task list and account for deferred or missing cards.
List the exceptions
Flag incomplete cards and plan their recovery or re-accomplishment.
What the buyer receives
- A supported exception list of cards missing sign-offs, stamps, or references
- A source map linking each card to its referenced instruction and the check
- A closure plan to recover or re-accomplish the incomplete cards
Who uses the output
- Records teams assembling the redelivery binder for the check
- Continuing-airworthiness teams confirming the check accomplishment holds up
- Asset and buyer teams relying on the check status the cards support
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The task-card review confirms the routine work the maintenance program called for was actually accomplished as recorded, so it sits between the program review and the non-routine closure. Its exception list drives recovery of incomplete cards while the shop and mechanics are still reachable, and the reconciled set anchors the check evidence in the data room or redelivery binder.
Aircraft-specific considerations
A320 family checks run frequently under high-cycle operation, so a given tail carries many closed card sets across multiple shops, and consistency of stamping and referencing varies from one visit to the next. Cabin and avionics reconfigurations add non-standard cards that are easy to lose against the base task list, so the review reconciles each set to the check it came from rather than treating the cards as a single pool.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
Independent inspection and required-item conventions differ between an FAA operator and an EASA CAMO, so a card set built under one system may not show the stamps the other expects. The review notes where the receiving party's conventions will require additional evidence rather than assuming a stamp from one system satisfies the other.
Regulatory limits
The review confirms the task cards support the recorded accomplishment. It does not re-accomplish a task, sign off a card, or determine that the check returned the aircraft to an airworthy condition.
What this review does not cover
- Performing or re-performing any task on a card
- Signing off or stamping a card
- Any airworthiness determination on the checked aircraft
Specific to this review
- The missing element on a closed card is usually the required-item inspection stamp, not the mechanic sign-off.
- A card referencing a superseded instruction revision can read as complete while the task was done to the wrong data.
- Reconciling each card set to its own check catches cards that the rolled-up status counts but the package never contained.
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
Is a mechanic sign-off enough to treat a required-item card as closed?
Not on its own. A required inspection item needs the independent inspection stamp the card calls for in addition to the accomplishing sign-off. The review flags cards that carry the sign-off but lack the stamp, because the task is not fully evidenced without it.
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.