Non-routine findings
Airbus A350 family non-routine card records review
This review examines the non-routine cards raised against an Airbus A350 family aircraft and confirms each defect was dispositioned and closed on traceable evidence. It is run by or for a lessor, operator, or manager evaluating a specific serial number, usually during diligence, a lease event, or a heavy-check exit. It follows each finding from the moment it was raised through the engineering disposition, the corrective action, and the final sign-off. You receive an exception list of cards that do not close cleanly, a source map behind each one, and a closure plan for the aircraft under review.
When this review is needed
- A heavy check on the aircraft generated a large non-routine batch that has to be reconciled before the check package is accepted.
- A buyer's diligence flagged open or thinly documented defect cards on this serial number.
- A repair raised as a non-routine finding needs its disposition confirmed before redelivery.
- The non-routine register and the individual cards disagree on how many items are actually closed.
The problem
Non-routine findings are where a check package quietly drifts from the airframe. A card can be marked closed on the register while its engineering disposition, its approved-data reference, or its final buy-back sign-off is missing from the file. On a composite airframe those cards frequently point at structural repairs whose approval basis lives in a separate package, so a defect that reads as trivial on the card can carry an open substantiation question underneath it.
What gets reviewed
- Every non-routine card from the review period matched to the register that claims to summarize them
- Engineering disposition recorded for each finding that required one, with its approval basis identified
- Corrective-action entries tied to the specific card and the specific defect they resolve
- Structural and composite findings cross-checked to the repair package that substantiates them
- Final buy-back and return-to-service sign-off present for each closed card
- Cards left open at review close carried onto the exception list with the evidence still owed
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
- The count of closed cards on the register agrees with the cards that actually carry a closing sign-off
- Each engineering disposition references data appropriate to the finding and the jurisdiction of record
- A corrective action names the part, location, and defect it addresses rather than a generic closing note
- Composite repair findings trace to an approval basis rather than a shop reference alone
- No card is closed against a disposition dated after its own buy-back
Evidence normally required
- The non-routine card set for the check or period under review
- The non-routine register or summary the operator maintains
- Engineering dispositions and the approved data they cite
- The heavy-check work package and its buy-back records
- Structural repair packages referenced by any composite finding
Common discrepancies
- A card marked closed on the register with no disposition attached to the card itself
- A composite repair raised as non-routine whose substantiation package is not in the file
- A corrective action worded so generically it cannot be tied to the defect it cleared
- A buy-back sign-off missing on a card the register counts as complete
What is at stake
Cards that close on the register but not in the evidence leave the owner holding a repair with no traceable disposition. That surfaces at the next check or the next sale, when a counterparty asks for the approved data and finds a corrective action recorded against nothing. Reconstructing the disposition after the shop has released the aircraft is slower and rarely as clean as capturing it at the check.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Pull cards and register together
Assemble the full non-routine card set and the register that claims to summarize it for the review period.
Trace each finding to disposition
Follow every card that required an engineering call to its disposition and the data that disposition cites.
Check composite findings to their package
Match structural and composite non-routines to the repair substantiation that has to travel with them.
List what does not close
Record every card that fails to close on the evidence and name the document owed to clear it.
What the buyer receives
- An exception list of non-routine cards that do not close on the evidence
- A source map linking each contested card to the disposition and package behind it
- A closure plan naming the document owed to clear each open card
Who uses the output
- Records teams reconciling a heavy-check package before they accept it
- Asset managers pricing the open non-routine position on the serial number
- Diligence teams confirming defect findings closed with real evidence
How the work fits into the transaction or program
This review sits between the shop's release of the aircraft and the point where the owner relies on the check as complete. Its exception list feeds remediation while the shop and the engineering that dispositioned the cards are still reachable, and the reconciled register then supports the redelivery binder or the data room the aircraft moves into next.
Aircraft-specific considerations
On the A350 the non-routine stream is weighted toward composite structural findings, so a card that names a skin or panel repair usually points at a substantiation package that has to travel with it. Long-haul cabin work and the Trent XWB engine records also raise non-routines whose disposition references sit outside the airframe file, which is where the register and the cards tend to disagree.
Regulatory limits
The review reads the non-routine records and reports where a card lacks the disposition or approval basis it should carry. It makes no airworthiness determination, approves no repair, and grants no acceptance of the check package; those decisions rest with the operator, the maintenance organization, and the authority.
What this review does not cover
- Re-performing or re-inspecting any repair raised as a non-routine finding
- Developing or approving the substantiation data behind a composite repair
- Accepting the heavy-check package on the operator's behalf
Specific to this review
- The register is a summary, not the evidence: a card can be counted closed there while the disposition that would close it is absent from the card.
- Composite non-routines carry their approval basis in a separate repair package, so the card alone rarely proves closure on an A350.
- The window to recover a missing disposition closes fast once the shop releases the aircraft and the check team disperses.
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
The register says every card is closed. Why review the cards themselves?
The register is a summary an operator maintains, and it can record a card as closed before the disposition, approved data, or buy-back that actually closes it is in the file. The review checks the cards and their evidence, not the count, so a card that reads closed but is not supported shows up as an exception.
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.