Repair approval data
Bombardier CRJ family repair approval data records review
This review reads the repair and alteration records on a Bombardier CRJ and tests whether each repair rests on approved data and closes with a return-to-service entry that will hold. It is run by or for the party buying, transferring, or maintaining the regional jet, before the repair history is relied on at a transaction or a program transfer. It covers the damage reports, the repair dispositions, the approved data behind each repair, and the return-to-service entries that closed them. You receive an exception list keyed to the repair map, a source map behind each repair's approval basis, and a closure plan for the repairs whose data does not hold.
When this review is needed
- A CRJ is being sold and the buyer wants each recorded repair tied to approved data before pricing.
- The tail is moving to a new operator's program and the repair history has to reconcile first.
- A structural repair was recorded without the approved-data reference it needs.
- A repair map has accumulated across operators and no one has confirmed the approvals behind it.
The problem
A CRJ in regional service takes structural and skin damage that gets repaired between operators, and the repair map fills with dispositions whose approved-data reference was never captured in the file. A repair can be sound but recorded against data that the file does not contain, or closed with a return-to-service entry that does not name the approval basis it relied on. On an aging regional airframe the aging-structure inspections compound this, because a repair area gets reopened and reworked, and the record has to show which disposition governs now.
What gets reviewed
- Each repair on the map matched to the damage report that raised it
- The approved or acceptable data behind each repair disposition confirmed present
- Return-to-service entries checked for the approval basis they relied on
- Structural repairs reconciled against the aging-structure inspection history
- Reworked repair areas resolved so the governing disposition is clear
- The repair map reconciled against the repairs the airframe actually carries
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 present in the file
- The return-to-service entry for a repair names the approval basis it relied on
- A structural repair reconciles with the aging-structure inspection record for its area
- A reworked area shows which disposition currently governs, not a chain of superseded ones
- The repair map reflects the repairs the airframe carries, with none recorded twice or omitted
Evidence normally required
- The repair map and the repair and alteration records for the tail
- Damage reports behind the recorded repairs
- Approved or acceptable data references for each repair
- Return-to-service entries closing the repairs
- Aging-structure inspection records for the repaired areas
Common discrepancies
- A structural repair recorded without the approved-data reference it relied on
- A return-to-service entry that closes a repair but names no approval basis
- A reworked repair area where the governing disposition is unclear
- A repair on the map with no damage report behind it
What is at stake
A repair without a traceable approval basis can force removal, re-substantiation, or a documented fallback, all of which are more expensive than confirming the data up front. On a tail changing hands, a structural repair whose approved data the file cannot produce is exactly the finding a buyer treats as a condition to be cleared before acceptance, and aging-structure repairs that cannot be reconciled leave the receiving operator uncertain which disposition governs an area that will be inspected again.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Map the repairs
List the repairs on the airframe and tie each to the damage report that raised it.
Confirm the data
Verify each disposition cites approved or acceptable data present in the file.
Reconcile the structure
Check structural repairs against the aging-structure inspection history and resolve reworked areas.
Plan the closures
List the repairs needing data retrieval, re-substantiation, or a documented fallback.
What the buyer receives
- An exception list keyed to the repair map, flagging the repairs whose data does not hold
- A source map linking each repair to its damage report, approved data, and return-to-service entry
- A closure plan for the repairs needing data retrieval, re-substantiation, or a documented fallback
Who uses the output
- Asset managers pricing the repair history the approved data actually supports
- Engineering deciding how to treat a repair with no traceable approval basis
- Records teams retrieving the approved data each unsupported repair requires
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The review runs before the repair history is relied on at a sale or a program transfer, so repairs without a traceable basis are found while the data and the shops that performed them can still be reached. Its closure plan drives the data retrieval and re-substantiation that has to finish before the repair map carries the airframe into a deal or onto a new program.
Aircraft-specific considerations
A CRJ's high-cycle regional utilization and its aging-structure inspection program mean structural repairs accumulate and get reopened, so a repaired area often carries more than one disposition and the record has to show which governs. Because the family changes operators, a repair performed under one operator may rely on approved data the current file never received, which is why each disposition is traced to the data behind it rather than accepted from the map.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
A CRJ moving between an FAA and an EASA register brings repairs whose approval basis each authority reads on its own terms, so a repair accepted under FAA approved data may need an EASA-acceptable basis before the receiving system relies on it. The review flags the repairs that will need a basis the destination accepts.
Regulatory limits
The review checks that each repair rests on traceable approved data and a valid closure. It does not approve a repair, develop repair data, or make an airworthiness determination on the airframe.
What this review does not cover
- Developing or approving repair or alteration data
- Performing or re-performing any repair
- Any airworthiness determination on the aircraft
Specific to this review
- On an aging CRJ, a structural repair area is often reopened and reworked, so the record has to show which disposition governs now rather than the first one filed.
- A repair recorded without its approved-data reference is the most common finding, because the data traveled with the operator that performed it and never reached the current file.
- A repair without a traceable basis can force removal or re-substantiation, so each disposition is tied to its data before the airframe is priced.
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
The repairs are all recorded and returned to service. Why check the approval data?
A return-to-service entry closes a repair, but it does not prove the approved data behind it is in the file. On a CRJ that changed operators, a structural repair's data often traveled with the shop that did the work, and a buyer treats a repair without a traceable basis as a condition to clear. The review ties each disposition to its data before that becomes a finding.
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.