Non-routine closure
Bombardier CRJ family non-routine records review
This review follows a CRJ's non-routine findings from the moment a defect was raised to the signed entry that closed it. It suits a team evaluating, transferring, or maintaining one tail, and it works through the non-routine register for a check rather than a portfolio average. The work confirms each defect card has a disposition, that the corrective action rests on approved data, and that the final sign-off actually closes the item rather than deferring it silently. You receive an exception list of open or unsupported closures, a source map from finding to approval, and a closure plan for that airframe.
When this review is needed
- A CRJ heavy check produced a large non-routine register and each finding has to be traced to a close.
- A structural defect was dispositioned and the approved-data basis behind the repair has never been checked.
- A tail is being redelivered and open non-routines have to be resolved or disclosed before handover.
- A prior operator's non-routine set is being carried forward and its closures are being relied on.
The problem
Non-routine cards are where a CRJ check gets its surprises, and they are also where the paper trail most often frays. A defect can be raised, partially worked, and closed with an entry that points at no disposition, or a corrective action can be recorded without the engineering approval that authorized it. On a high-cycle regional tail the register runs long, and a single unclosed structural finding buried in it carries more weight than a hundred routine ones.
What gets reviewed
- Each non-routine finding traced from the raising card to a signed close
- Engineering dispositions checked for a stated basis rather than a bare instruction
- Corrective actions matched to the approved or acceptable data that authorized them
- Structural and repair findings reconciled to the structural-repair and modification records
- Findings deferred rather than closed identified and cross-checked to the deferral log
- Repeat findings across checks flagged where a defect keeps recurring
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 non-routine card in the register resolves to a close, a deferral, or an open exception
- Each engineering disposition states the basis it relied on rather than only the action taken
- A corrective action that altered structure or configuration carries approved-data reference
- A finding marked closed shows the sign-off that actually completed the work
- Findings pushed to deferral appear in the deferred-maintenance log with an interval
Evidence normally required
- The non-routine register for the check or period under review
- The individual non-routine cards with dispositions and sign-offs
- Engineering orders or repair approvals referenced by the corrective actions
- The structural-repair and modification records the findings feed into
- The deferred-maintenance log for items pushed rather than closed
Common discrepancies
- A non-routine marked closed with a corrective action but no approved-data reference
- A structural defect dispositioned by an instruction whose approval basis is not on file
- A finding recorded as deferred that never reached the deferral log
- A recurring defect closed the same way at each check with the root cause never addressed
What is at stake
A non-routine closed without its approved-data basis leaves a repair that may have to be re-substantiated or removed, which is far more disruptive than confirming the basis when the card was open. A finding recorded as closed but never actually corrected becomes a live safety and value issue that surfaces at the next inspection, when the operator that raised it is long gone.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Walk the register
Trace every non-routine card to a close, a deferral, or an open state.
Test each disposition
Confirm the engineering basis and the approved data behind each corrective action.
Reconcile the exits
Match structural findings to the repair records and deferred items to the deferral log.
Rank the exceptions
Order open and unsupported findings by structural weight and handover impact.
What the buyer receives
- An exception list of open, deferred, or unsupported non-routine closures
- A source map linking each finding to the disposition and approval behind it
- A closure plan ordered by structural weight and handover impact
Who uses the output
- Records teams clearing the non-routine register before redelivery or the next check
- Engineering deciding how to treat a closure whose approved-data basis is missing
- Asset managers weighing unresolved findings into the value of the tail
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Non-routine review picks up the findings the task-card review surfaces and hands its structural items to the structural-repair review and its pushed items to the deferred-maintenance review. Its closure plan drives the corrective work a redelivery has to clear and the disclosures a data room has to carry.
Aircraft-specific considerations
CRJ airframes worked hard on short regional cycles generate structural and fatigue-related non-routines that the aging-structure program keeps finding, and landing-gear and pressurization-boundary findings recur on high-cycle tails. Because operator changes are common on this type, a non-routine raised under one operator is often closed under another, which is exactly where the disposition trail tends to break.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
FAA and EASA treat the acceptable basis for a repair disposition differently, so a CRJ non-routine closed on data acceptable to one authority is checked against what the relying system will require, and any disposition that would need a fresh approval on transfer is flagged.
Regulatory limits
The review traces findings to their closures and identifies what is open or unsupported. It does not approve a repair, disposition a defect, or determine that the aircraft is airworthy.
What this review does not cover
- Dispositioning any defect or approving a corrective action
- Performing the corrective maintenance behind a finding
- Any airworthiness determination on the aircraft
Specific to this review
- A non-routine closed without an approved-data reference is the most expensive kind to inherit, because the repair may have to be re-substantiated after the fact.
- Deferral disguised as closure is a specific CRJ risk: the card reads done while the work actually moved to a log that may not exist.
- A recurring structural finding closed identically each check is a signal the root cause was never dispositioned, only patched.
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
Why focus on the approved-data basis rather than just whether the card is signed?
A signed card shows work was done, but a corrective action that changed structure or configuration is only defensible if it rested on approved or acceptable data. Without that reference the repair can be challenged later and may have to be re-substantiated, so the basis is what the review confirms.
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.