Repair and alteration records
ATR 72 repair approval data records review
This review works through the repairs and alterations recorded on an ATR 72 and confirms each one rests on approved data and a proper return-to-service entry. It is run for a lessor, operator, or manager who needs the repair history to hold before a transaction, an audit, or a heavy check. The work follows damage reports, repair dispositions, the approved data cited, and the entries that returned each repair to service. You receive an exception list of repairs without a traceable basis, a map to the approval data behind them, and a closure plan for the ones that need substantiation recovered.
When this review is needed
- An ATR 72 is being sold or leased and the buyer will test whether each repair carries approved data.
- A heavy check surfaced repairs whose approval basis has to be confirmed before the aircraft returns to service.
- A structural repair was carried out abroad and the data behind its disposition has never been checked.
- A repair map is being assembled and the records behind the mapped repairs need reconciling.
The problem
A repair is only defensible if the disposition points to data an authority accepts and the return-to-service entry follows from it. A structural repair recorded with a shop's own drawing but no approved basis, an alteration treated as a routine repair, or a return-to-service entry that does not reference the data used all leave the repair exposed. On an ATR 72 with corrosion-prone areas and a long structural history, these repairs accumulate and the basis behind older ones is often the hardest evidence to recover.
What gets reviewed
- Damage reports and the repair dispositions recorded against them
- Approved or acceptable data cited for each repair and alteration
- Return-to-service entries traced to the data actually used
- Alterations distinguished from repairs and recorded on the correct basis
- Repeat repairs and their effect on the structural repair map
- Repairs affecting configuration reconciled to the modification records
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 repair disposition cites approved or acceptable data appropriate to the damage and the structure
- The return-to-service entry references the data used and follows from the disposition
- An alteration is recorded as an alteration where the change requires it, not as a routine repair
- Structural repairs are placed on the repair map with their extent and basis documented
- A repair that changed configuration is reflected in the modification and configuration records
Evidence normally required
- The repair and alteration records with dispositions
- The approved or acceptable data cited for each repair
- Damage reports and inspection findings behind the repairs
- The structural repair map for the airframe
- Return-to-service entries for the repaired areas
Common discrepancies
- A structural repair recorded with a shop drawing but no approved-data basis
- A return-to-service entry that does not reference the data the repair used
- An alteration recorded as a routine repair, understating its approval requirement
- A repeat repair in an area where the map shows an earlier one that limits it
What is at stake
A repair without traceable approved data may have to be re-substantiated or reworked, which is far costlier than confirming the basis up front and can ground the aircraft until it is resolved. A buyer who cannot verify the repair history discounts the airframe or requires the exposure carried explicitly. Where the data is genuinely lost, a conservative disposition falls on the owner, and structural repairs are the items least forgiving of a missing basis.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Assemble the repair set
Pull the repair and alteration records and place structural repairs on the map.
Check the basis
Confirm each disposition cites approved or acceptable data suited to the damage.
Trace return to service
Verify each return-to-service entry follows from the data actually used.
Plan the substantiation
List repairs without a traceable basis and sequence the recovery.
What the buyer receives
- An exception list of repairs and alterations lacking a traceable approved basis
- A source map linking each repair to its approval data and return-to-service entry
- A closure plan for the repairs that need substantiation recovered or re-established
Who uses the output
- Asset managers pricing the airframe against a verified repair history
- Engineering deciding how to treat a repair with no traceable basis
- Records teams recovering approved data before the next transaction or check
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Repair approval data underpins the structural configuration a buyer and a receiving operator both rely on, so verifying it settles a question that a heavy check or a sale would otherwise force open. This review confirms the basis before that scrutiny, and its closure plan drives the substantiation recovery that has to finish before the repairs can be relied on.
Aircraft-specific considerations
The ATR 72's structure carries corrosion-prone areas and lap-joint regions that a narrowbody review would not emphasize the same way, so repeat repairs and their interaction on the repair map get particular attention. Long regional service lives mean structural repairs accumulate, and repairs carried out at varied shops abroad are where the approved-data basis most often turns out to be thin.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
A repair substantiated under one authority's approved data may need re-establishing where the ATR 72 moves to the other's register, so the review flags repairs whose basis is valid on one side but would require acceptable data for the destination system.
Regulatory limits
This work confirms that repairs and alterations are supported by traceable approved data and proper return-to-service entries. It does not approve any repair data, re-perform a repair, or make an airworthiness determination on the structure.
What this review does not cover
- Developing, approving, or re-approving repair or alteration data
- Performing or re-performing any repair or inspection
- Any airworthiness determination on the repaired structure
Specific to this review
- A structural repair with a shop drawing but no approved basis may face rework, which costs far more than confirming the basis up front.
- Repeat repairs in one area can interact on the repair map, so an isolated repair record can miss a limit set by an earlier one.
- An alteration mislabeled as a routine repair understates the approval it actually required, which surfaces at the next scrutiny.
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.
European Union / EASA. Continuing airworthiness, maintenance records, CAMO responsibilities, and the airworthiness review process in the EASA system.
Frequently asked questions
What happens to a repair whose approval data we cannot find?
It is flagged as lacking a traceable basis, and the options are to recover the data, re-establish an acceptable basis, or carry the exposure explicitly. Doing that before a transaction is cheaper and more defensible than having a buyer or a check surface 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.