Task-card records
ATR 72 task-card evidence records review
This review works through the closed task cards behind an ATR 72's completed checks and confirms each card is signed off, stamped where required, and traceable to the instruction it was raised against. It is run for a lessor, operator, or manager who needs the check evidence to hold before a transaction, an audit, or induction. The work samples routine cards, verifies the sign-offs and inspection stamps, and confirms each card references the maintenance instruction it accomplished. You receive an exception list of task cards that do not stand up, a map to the instructions behind them, and a closure plan for the cards that need correction or evidence recovered.
When this review is needed
- An ATR 72 is being sold or leased and the buyer will sample the closed task cards from recent checks.
- A lease return requires the check work packs verified against the tasks they were meant to close.
- A heavy check was completed at a shop and the card set has not been reconciled to the workscope.
- An audit is expected and the operator wants sign-offs and stamps confirmed before it starts.
The problem
A task card is the ground-level evidence that a task was actually done, and a check status built on cards is only as good as the cards behind it. A routine card closed without the required inspection stamp, a sign-off with no reference to the instruction it accomplished, or a card missing from a work pack that the status says is complete all leave the check status exposed. On an ATR 72 whose checks were carried out at varied shops, card formats and sign-off conventions differ, so gaps hide in the volume.
What gets reviewed
- Routine task cards sampled from the completed checks
- Sign-offs verified for the required signatures and dates
- Inspection stamps present where the card calls for independent inspection
- Card references traced to the maintenance instruction they accomplished
- Non-routine cards raised against findings reconciled to the routine cards
- Card completeness reconciled to the workscope the check was carried out to
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 sampled card carries the sign-offs and dates the task requires to be closed
- Inspection stamps are present on cards calling for independent or required inspection
- Every card references the maintenance instruction it was raised against
- Non-routine cards tie to the routine card or finding that generated them
- The closed card set accounts for the tasks the workscope says the check covered
Evidence normally required
- The closed task-card set from the completed checks
- The workscope or check package the cards were raised against
- The maintenance instructions the cards reference
- Non-routine cards and the findings behind them
- Sign-off and stamp conventions for the accomplishing shops
Common discrepancies
- A routine card closed without the required inspection stamp
- A sign-off with no reference to the instruction the card accomplished
- A card the status treats as complete that is missing from the work pack
- A non-routine card with no link to the routine card or finding that raised it
What is at stake
A card that cannot be produced or that lacks its sign-off forces the underlying task to be treated as unproven, which can reopen a check status a buyer relied on. A missing inspection stamp on a required item can put the aircraft's inspection basis in question at an audit. Reconstructing card evidence after a check is closed and the shop has moved on is slow, so the exposure sits on the file until it is resolved.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Sample the card set
Pull a representative set of routine cards from the completed checks.
Verify closure
Confirm each card carries the sign-offs and inspection stamps it requires.
Trace the references
Tie each card to the instruction it accomplished and to any non-routine card it raised.
Plan the corrections
List cards lacking closure or references and sequence their recovery.
What the buyer receives
- An exception list of task cards lacking sign-off, stamp, or a traceable reference
- A source map linking each card to the instruction and workscope behind it
- A closure plan for the cards that need correction or evidence recovered
Who uses the output
- Asset managers confirming the check status rests on verifiable card evidence
- Technical acceptance teams sampling cards before a return or induction
- Records teams correcting sign-offs and recovering missing cards before an audit
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Task cards are the base evidence a check status is built on, so their integrity decides whether that status holds when a buyer or auditor samples it. This review confirms the cards before that sampling, and its closure plan drives the corrections and recovery that have to finish before the check status can be relied on across a transaction or an audit.
Aircraft-specific considerations
ATR 72 checks weight corrosion inspections, propeller tasks, and landing-gear items that carry required-inspection stamps a narrowbody review would not emphasize the same way, so stamp verification matters more here. Because these aircraft are maintained at varied regional shops, card formats and sign-off conventions differ between checks, and reconciling non-routine cards to their findings is where the card set most often falls short.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
Sign-off and inspection-stamp conventions differ between the FAA and EASA systems, so where an ATR 72 moves registers the review notes cards whose closure is valid in one system but would need re-presentation to satisfy the other.
Regulatory limits
This work confirms that task cards are properly closed and traceable to the instructions behind them. It does not re-perform any task, sign off any card, or make an airworthiness determination on the check.
What this review does not cover
- Performing or re-performing any task or inspection
- Signing off or re-stamping any task card
- Any airworthiness determination on the completed check
Specific to this review
- A check status is only as strong as the cards behind it, and one card missing its inspection stamp can put the check's basis in question.
- Non-routine cards that do not tie to the finding that raised them are a common gap that hides in the volume of a heavy check.
- ATR 72 corrosion and landing-gear tasks often carry required-inspection stamps, so stamp verification carries more weight than on a narrowbody.
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 check is signed off complete. Why sample the individual cards?
The completion statement rests on the cards behind it. A buyer or auditor samples those cards to confirm the tasks were closed with the right sign-offs and stamps, so this review tests them the same way before the check status 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.