Engine shop-visit records
ATR 72 engine shop-visit records review
This review works through an ATR 72 engine shop-visit package and confirms the shop report, module build records, test-cell data, and release certificate together tell one consistent story. It is run for a lessor, operator, or manager who needs the shop visit to hold before an engine transaction, a lease return, or induction. The work checks that the build is documented part by part, the LLP trace carries through the visit, and the release matches what the shop report describes. You receive an exception list of gaps in the package, a map to the supporting documents, and a closure plan for the pieces that are missing or inconsistent.
When this review is needed
- An ATR 72 engine is being sold or leased and the buyer will read the last shop-visit package end to end.
- A lease return requires the shop-visit records verified against the engine's status at handback.
- The engine passed through overhaul and the module build and LLP trace across it need reconciling.
- A workscope was partial and the package has to show clearly what was and was not touched.
The problem
An engine shop-visit package is a stack of documents that only has value if they agree with each other. A shop report can describe a build that the module records do not fully account for, test-cell data can be missing for a run the report references, and the release certificate can cover a configuration that the build sheets do not match. On an ATR 72 powerplant the LLP trace has to carry cleanly through the visit, and a partial workscope makes it easy to lose track of what the visit actually changed.
What gets reviewed
- The shop report and the workscope it was carried out against
- Module build records accounting for the parts in the current build
- LLP trace carried through the shop visit without a break
- Test-cell data supporting the runs the shop report references
- The release certificate matched to the build the package describes
- Post-visit status reset for life-limited and time-controlled items
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 module build records account for every part the shop report says was installed
- LLP used cycles carry through the visit and reconcile with the status after it
- Test-cell data is present for the runs the shop report relies on
- The release certificate describes the same configuration the build sheets show
- The post-visit status reset matches what the workscope and report actually covered
Evidence normally required
- The engine shop-visit package and its shop report
- The workscope the visit was carried out to
- Module build records and part lists from the build
- Test-cell data and inspection results from the visit
- The release certificate and post-visit status report
Common discrepancies
- A shop report describing a build the module records do not fully account for
- An LLP whose trace does not carry cleanly through the shop visit
- Test-cell data missing for a run the shop report references
- A release certificate covering a configuration the build sheets do not match
What is at stake
An incomplete or inconsistent shop-visit package drags down the engine's value because a buyer cannot confirm what was done or what life was reset. A missing build sheet or test-cell record can leave an LLP position unproven through the visit, which reopens the trace. Recovering shop documentation after the fact depends on a shop that may have moved on, so the gap tends to persist and the exposure sits with the engine.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Read the report against the scope
Confirm the shop report matches the workscope the visit was carried out to.
Reconcile the build
Check the module build records account for the parts and carry the LLP trace through.
Match test data and release
Confirm test-cell data supports the runs and the release matches the build described.
Plan the recovery
List missing or inconsistent documents and sequence their recovery.
What the buyer receives
- An exception list of gaps and inconsistencies across the shop-visit package
- A source map linking the report, build records, test data, and release together
- A closure plan for the documents that are missing or do not reconcile
Who uses the output
- Asset managers pricing the engine against a complete, consistent shop-visit package
- Continuing-airworthiness teams confirming the engine status before induction
- Records teams recovering missing shop documentation before the next transaction
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The shop-visit package is where an engine's status and LLP position are reset, so its completeness governs the engine value and feeds the LLP trace and status reporting downstream. This review confirms the package holds together before a transaction reads it, and its closure plan drives the recovery of the documents needed to prove what the visit changed.
Aircraft-specific considerations
ATR 72 powerplant shop visits involve modules and life-limited rotating parts whose trace has to carry through the build, and propeller work often accompanies the engine event in a way a jet review would not see. Partial workscopes are common on regional turboprops kept in service a long time, so the package has to show clearly what the visit touched and what it left, which is where documentation most often falls short.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
Where the engine crosses between the FAA and EASA systems, the shop release and its supporting evidence have to satisfy the receiving authority, so the review flags a package whose release is valid on one side but would need re-presentation for the other.
Regulatory limits
This work confirms that the shop-visit package is complete and internally consistent. It does not release the engine, certify the build, or make an airworthiness determination on the powerplant.
What this review does not cover
- Performing or re-performing any engine maintenance or test
- Issuing or re-issuing the engine release certificate
- Any airworthiness determination on the engine
Specific to this review
- A shop-visit package has value only when the report, build records, test data, and release all describe the same build.
- A partial workscope makes it easy to lose track of what the visit changed, so the package has to state what it left untouched.
- A missing build sheet or test-cell record can leave an LLP position unproven through the visit and reopen the trace.
Sources
U.S. Government (eCFR). Maintenance recordkeeping content and approval-for-return-to-service requirements, including 43.9, 43.11, and Appendix B.
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.
Federal Aviation Administration. Completion and use of FAA Form 8130-3, Authorized Release Certificate, for new and used parts.
European Union / EASA. Continuing airworthiness, maintenance records, CAMO responsibilities, and the airworthiness review process in the EASA system.
Frequently asked questions
The engine has a release certificate. Why review the whole package?
The release states the engine was returned to service, but a buyer relies on the full package to confirm what was done, what life was reset, and that the LLP trace carried through. This review checks those documents agree before the package is relied on.
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.