Non-routine closure
ATR 72 non-routine card and defect closure records review
This review examines the non-routine cards an ATR 72 generated during checks and confirms that each raised defect was dispositioned and closed with evidence. A records specialist runs it during diligence, at redelivery, or when a check-exit package has to be reconciled against the routine work it accompanied. It walks the defect register, engineering dispositions, corrective-action entries, and final sign-offs to find findings that were opened but never demonstrably resolved. You receive an exception list keyed to specific cards, a map from each entry to its source, and a plan to close what is open.
When this review is needed
- A heavy check has exited and the non-routine cards it raised need reconciling against the routine package.
- Diligence on an ATR 72 turned up a defect register with more open lines than closure entries.
- A redelivery binder is being assembled and every non-routine finding must trace to a documented close.
- A prior operator handed over cards with dispositions that reference engineering decisions no one can locate.
The problem
Non-routine cards are where a check's real story lives, and they are also where closure most often slips. A finding gets raised on the floor, an engineer dispositions it verbally or on a separate form, the corrective action happens, but the card itself never gets a clean final sign-off. On a regional turboprop that has run high-cycle short sectors, the volume of small findings makes it easy for a handful to close in fact but not on paper.
What gets reviewed
- Every non-routine card raised in the check window matched to its disposition and closure entry
- Engineering dispositions traced from the card to the decision that authorized them
- Corrective-action entries reconciled to the defect they were raised against
- Final sign-offs checked for the signature, date, and reference the closure requires
- The non-routine register cross-checked against the cards it claims to summarize
- Deferred items carried out of the check confirmed against the deferral record that holds them
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 card in the register has a matching physical or scanned card behind it, rather than a bare line item
- Every disposition names the approved or acceptable data the corrective action relied on
- Closure sign-offs carry the personnel reference and date the operator's system requires
- Findings marked deferred at check exit appear in the deferral log with a clearing basis
- The card count in the register reconciles with the cards actually delivered in the package
Evidence normally required
- The non-routine card set for the check period under review
- The non-routine register or summary that indexes those cards
- Engineering disposition sheets and the approved-data references they cite
- The routine task package the non-routines were raised against
- Any deferral log carrying findings forward out of the check
Common discrepancies
- A card showing a corrective action performed but missing its final closure sign-off
- A disposition that references engineering data the package does not include
- Register lines with no card behind them, or cards absent from the register
- A finding deferred at check exit with no corresponding entry in the deferral log
What is at stake
An open non-routine card that never closed reads to a buyer or auditor as unfinished maintenance, whether or not the work was done. Left unreconciled, these cards force a conservative assumption at the next transaction, and reconstructing the disposition years later means chasing an engineer and a shop that may no longer hold the paper.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Assemble the card set
Pull every non-routine card for the check window and the register that indexes them.
Match card to closure
Trace each card through its disposition and corrective action to a final sign-off.
Reconcile the register
Confirm the register and the physical cards account for each other line by line.
List and sequence gaps
Record cards missing closure evidence and order them for follow-up.
What the buyer receives
- An exception list keyed to individual card numbers with the closure gap on each
- A source map linking every non-routine entry to its supporting document
- A closure plan sequencing the cards that still need disposition evidence
Who uses the output
- Records teams assembling a defensible check-exit or redelivery package
- Asset managers judging whether open cards represent real or paper-only exposure
- CAMO leads confirming the continued-airworthiness status the cards feed
How the work fits into the transaction or program
This review sits between a completed check and the binder that has to represent it. It takes the non-routine output the routine package generated and drives each card to a documented close, so the reconciled register can feed a redelivery audit, a data room, or the operator's own continued-airworthiness file.
Aircraft-specific considerations
An ATR 72 in regional service accumulates cycles fast on short sectors, so its non-routine history skews toward gear, structural corrosion, and propeller-related findings rather than the systems defects a long-haul narrowbody logs. The review weighs those categories accordingly and checks that corrosion-driven cards trace to the structural repair evidence they should generate.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
An ATR 72 moving between an FAA and an EASA framework carries non-routine records whose closure conventions differ, so the review notes where a card closed to one system's expectations needs supplementary evidence to satisfy the other.
Regulatory limits
The review reports what the card evidence supports about closure. It does not re-perform or approve any corrective action, does not issue a release, and makes no airworthiness determination on the aircraft or its outstanding findings.
What this review does not cover
- Re-accomplishing or inspecting any corrective action behind a card
- Issuing a return-to-service or authorized release on a closed finding
- Judging the technical adequacy of an engineering disposition
Specific to this review
- Non-routine cards close in fact more often than on paper, so the gap is usually a missing sign-off rather than undone work.
- The register and the card set are two separate records and they drift apart, which is why the count reconciliation matters.
- High-cycle regional operation raises small-finding volume, so a few unclosed cards hide easily inside a large check.
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
Does an open card mean the maintenance was never done?
Usually not. Most open cards reflect a corrective action that happened but never received its closing sign-off. The review distinguishes a paper-only gap from a genuinely unfinished finding so you know which cards need a signature and which need the work itself examined.
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.