Engine AD status
CFM56 engine airworthiness directive status records review
This review confirms that a CFM56 engine AD status list is supported by accomplishment evidence and that applicability was judged correctly through the engine's module and shop-visit history. It suits a lessor, airline, or manager evaluating or transferring the engine who needs the AD position to hold before a sale, lease return, or shop visit. The work checks applicability notes, accomplishment records, and method-of-compliance evidence against the module build for this turbofan engine. You receive an exception list of AD lines lacking evidence or mis-judged applicability, a source map behind each AD position, and a closure plan for the engine.
When this review is needed
- A CFM56 engine is being evaluated or transferred and its AD status list must be reconciled to evidence.
- A lease return requires the AD position confirmed against accomplishment records before handback.
- A shop visit is planned and the AD applicability has to be settled against the current module build.
- Prior status lists carried applicability calls that the module history does not clearly support.
The problem
A CFM56 AD status list rolls up applicability and accomplishment across a large installed base, and both can detach from the evidence. Applicability turns on part numbers and module build standards that change at every shop visit, so an AD non-applicable at one build can become applicable after a module swap and no one revisits the call. Accomplishment can be asserted on the list while the underlying record, a disk sheet, a shop-visit report, or a service bulletin embodiment that satisfied the AD, sits with a prior shop or lessor and never traveled with the engine.
What gets reviewed
- Each AD on the status list matched to its accomplishment record and method of compliance
- Applicability judged against the current part numbers and module build standard
- AD compliance achieved by service bulletin traced to the SB embodiment record
- Terminating actions confirmed where an AD offers one, versus repetitive inspection
- Applicability re-checked across shop visits where module builds changed
- AD positions reconciled between the engine list and the airframe-level 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
- Every AD marked complete carries an accomplishment record with the method of compliance stated
- Applicability for each AD reflects the current part numbers and module build standard
- ADs satisfied by an SB trace to the embodiment record, not the SB reference alone
- Terminating actions are supported where claimed, so no repetitive inspection is dropped in error
- Applicability calls are revisited at each shop visit where the module build changed
Evidence normally required
- The engine AD status list with applicability and accomplishment notes
- Accomplishment records, disk sheets, and method-of-compliance evidence
- Shop-visit reports and module build records for the engine
- Service bulletin embodiment records where ADs are satisfied by SB
- The current engine configuration and part-number status
Common discrepancies
- An AD marked complete with no accomplishment record to support it
- An applicability call left stale after a module swap changed the build standard
- An AD satisfied by SB with the embodiment record missing from the engine file
- A terminating action claimed without the evidence that a repetitive inspection can stop
What is at stake
An AD asserted complete without its accomplishment record forces a conservative assumption that the buyer or the next shop pays to resolve, and an applicability call left stale after a module swap can leave an AD unaddressed on an engine that now falls within its terms. At lease return, an unsupported AD position stalls handback until the evidence is recovered, and recovery gets harder as the shops that held it move on.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Fix the module build
Establish the engine's current module build and part-number status as the basis for applicability.
Test applicability
Judge each AD against that build and re-check calls at every shop visit where the build changed.
Trace accomplishment
Match each complete AD to its accomplishment record, disk sheet, or SB embodiment.
Flag and plan
List AD lines lacking evidence or mis-judged applicability and set the recovery or re-check action.
What the buyer receives
Who uses the output
- Asset managers pricing the engine with its AD position understood
- Continuing-airworthiness teams confirming the AD status before a shop visit or handback
- Records teams recovering accomplishment evidence before it becomes unreachable
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The CFM56 AD status feeds the engine's continued-airworthiness position and any transaction or shop visit that depends on knowing what is complied with. Settling it against the module build before a lease return or an induction means the AD position is defensible rather than assumed, and any evidence gap is chased while the shops that hold it can still be reached.
Aircraft-specific considerations
CFM56 AD compliance depends on the engine's module build history, because applicability tracks the part numbers and standards installed at the last shop visit, and disk sheets and shop-visit reports are where the accomplishment evidence lives. Across a large installed base an engine changes hands and shops repeatedly, so the review scopes applicability to this engine's specific module builds rather than a fleet-wide AD list.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
FAA and EASA issue and mandate ADs on their own timelines and an EASA AD may address a condition an FAA AD covers differently, so a CFM56 crossing between registers has its status checked against both applicable lists rather than assuming one satisfies the other.
Regulatory limits
The review confirms the AD status is supported by evidence and that applicability was judged against the module build. It does not accomplish an AD, approve a method of compliance, or determine that the engine is airworthy.
What this review does not cover
- Accomplishing or re-accomplishing any AD
- Approving a method of compliance or an alternative means of compliance
- Any airworthiness determination on the engine
Specific to this review
- CFM56 AD applicability can flip after a module swap, so a call that was correct at one build can go stale without anyone revisiting it.
- Accomplishment evidence lives on disk sheets and shop-visit reports that often stay with a prior shop rather than traveling with the engine.
- A terminating action claimed without evidence can wrongly drop a repetitive inspection the engine still owes.
Sources
U.S. Government (eCFR). The legal basis for issuing and enforcing Airworthiness Directives on U.S.-registered products.
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
Why re-check AD applicability at each shop visit?
Applicability tracks part numbers and module build standards, and a shop visit can swap modules that change which ADs apply. An AD non-applicable at the prior build can become applicable after the swap, so the applicability calls are revisited against the build the engine actually carries now.
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.