A350 task cards
Airbus A350 family task-card evidence records review
This review works through the closed task-card set for an Airbus A350 and confirms each card is signed off, stamped where inspection is required, and tied to the maintenance instruction it references. It is run for a CAMO, operator, or buyer that needs the task-card evidence from a check to hold before a transfer, a lease return, or an audit. The work checks routine cards against the check content, confirms sign-offs and inspection stamps are present, and follows the referenced instructions to the data behind them. You receive an exception list of card-level gaps, a source map, and a closure plan for this aircraft.
When this review is needed
- An A350 completed a check and the closed task-card set has to support the return before a transfer.
- A lease return requires the task cards from a recent check to be confirmed as evidence.
- An audit questioned whether the closed cards carry the sign-offs and stamps required.
- A card set was inherited from a prior check and its referenced instructions have never been followed.
The problem
A check is only evidenced by its task cards if each card is properly closed, and a large check on a widebody generates thousands of cards signed by many hands. A card closed without an inspection stamp where one is required, a sign-off missing the referenced instruction, or a card that points to a superseded revision of a maintenance instruction all read as done in the stack until the set is worked card by card. On the A350 the check content is dense, so a small proportion of defective cards is still a large absolute number.
What gets reviewed
- Closed routine cards against the check content they belong to
- Sign-offs present and complete on each closed card
- Inspection stamps where the card requires a required inspection item
- Referenced maintenance instructions followed to the data behind them
- Cards referencing the current revision of their instruction
- Non-routine cards raised against routine findings and their closure
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 closed card carries a complete sign-off for the work it records
- Cards requiring an inspection stamp carry the stamp and the inspector reference
- The maintenance instruction a card references resolves to the correct current revision
- The closed set accounts for the check content it is meant to evidence
- Non-routine cards raised during the check are closed with their own evidence
Evidence normally required
- The closed task-card set from the check under review
- The check content or work package the cards belong to
- The referenced maintenance instructions and their revision status
- The non-routine cards raised during the check
- The return-to-service basis the check supports
Common discrepancies
- A card closed without the inspection stamp its required inspection item calls for
- A sign-off that does not reference the maintenance instruction the work followed
- A card pointing to a superseded revision of its maintenance instruction
- A non-routine card raised during the check that was never closed
What is at stake
A task card that is not properly closed leaves the corresponding work unevidenced, which can force a re-inspection or a rework and stall a return or transfer that depends on the check. A card referencing a superseded instruction raises the question of whether the work was done to current data, and reconstructing the intent of a card closed by someone who has since left is slow and sometimes inconclusive.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Anchor to the check
Fix the check content the closed card set is meant to evidence.
Work the cards
Check sign-offs, inspection stamps, and referenced instructions card by card.
Chase the non-routines
Confirm every non-routine card raised in the check was closed with evidence.
Flag and plan
List the defective cards and sequence correction or re-evidencing.
What the buyer receives
- An exception list of task cards with incomplete or inconsistent closure
- A source map from the cards to the referenced instructions and the check content
- A closure plan to correct or re-evidence the affected cards
Who uses the output
- CAMO and records teams confirming the check evidence before a return
- Asset and acquisition teams reading check quality into the aircraft's value
- Buyers requiring a clean task-card set before they accept the aircraft
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The review sits after a check and before the task-card set has to carry the return, a transfer, or an audit. Its exception list drives the correction and re-evidencing of the defective cards while the people who closed them can still be reached, and the source map ties the cards back to the check they evidence.
Aircraft-specific considerations
A widebody A350 check generates a large task-card volume across a dense structural and systems content, so even a small proportion of defective cards is a significant absolute number to work through. The review samples the required inspection items and non-routine cards first, because those are the cards on this family where an incomplete closure carries the most weight at a return or an audit.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
A check closed under one authority's sign-off and stamp conventions and an aircraft moving to an operator under another can raise questions about whether the card evidence satisfies the receiving system. The review notes where the task-card evidence will need supplementing for the register the aircraft is heading into.
Regulatory limits
The review confirms the task-card evidence is complete and consistent. It does not close a task card, sign off or stamp any work, or make an airworthiness determination on the aircraft or the check.
What this review does not cover
- Closing, signing off, or stamping any task card
- Re-performing or inspecting any task behind a card
- Any airworthiness determination on the aircraft
Specific to this review
- A widebody check generates thousands of cards, so even a small defect rate leaves a large absolute number of cards to correct.
- A card referencing a superseded instruction raises whether the work followed current data, which is slower to resolve than a missing signature.
- A non-routine card raised during a check but never closed is a common gap, because attention shifts to the routine set at the end of the check.
- A card missing its required inspection stamp leaves that inspection unevidenced, which can force a re-inspection long after the check closed.
- Reconstructing the intent of a card closed by someone who has since left is slow and sometimes inconclusive, so defective cards are worked while the crew is reachable.
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
Do you re-inspect the work behind the cards?
No. The review confirms the cards are properly closed, stamped, and tied to the correct instruction. Where a card is defective, correcting or re-evidencing it, and any re-inspection that requires, stays with the operator or maintenance organization.
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.