Task-card evidence
Bombardier CRJ family task-card records review
This review reads a CRJ's closed task cards as the evidence that each scheduled check was actually worked rather than merely planned. It fits a team evaluating, transferring, or maintaining one tail, and it examines the routine card set for a given check rather than a fleet sample. The work confirms sign-offs and inspection stamps are present and authorized, that referenced maintenance instructions match the revision in force, and that the closed set accounts for the tasks the package called due. You receive an exception list tied to the affected cards, a source map from card to instruction, and a closure plan for that airframe.
When this review is needed
- A CRJ check package is presented as complete and a buyer needs the cards to prove it.
- A heavy check just closed and the task-card set has to be reconciled before the tail returns to service.
- Sign-offs from a prior operator are being relied on and their authorization has never been checked.
- A redelivery binder lists checks accomplished and the underlying cards are being assembled for handover.
The problem
A completed check is only defensible if the cards behind it hold together, and on a CRJ that has moved between operators the card sets are often scanned, partial, or filed against a different check numbering. A card can be signed but reference a superseded instruction, or a routine task can appear in the package summary with no closed card behind it. The summary reads complete while the evidence underneath is thin.
What gets reviewed
- Routine cards for the check reconciled against the tasks the package called due
- Sign-offs and inspection stamps checked for presence and valid authorization
- Referenced maintenance instructions matched to the revision in force at accomplishment
- Dual-inspection and required-inspection items confirmed where the task demands them
- Cards referencing non-routine findings cross-checked to the non-routine set
- Legibility and completeness of the scanned card images assessed for reliance
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 task the package called due has a closed card behind it in the set
- Each sign-off carries an authorization valid for that task at the date worked
- The instruction a card cites matches the revision applicable when the work was done
- Required-inspection items show the second stamp the task requires
- Card images are legible enough that an auditor could rely on them without the original
Evidence normally required
- The closed routine task-card set for the check under review
- The check package work scope or task list that defined the check
- The maintenance instructions the cards reference, at the applicable revisions
- The authorization records for the personnel who signed the cards
- The non-routine card set generated during the same check
Common discrepancies
- A task in the package summary with no closed card supporting it
- A card citing a maintenance instruction revision that was already superseded
- A required-inspection item missing its second sign-off
- Scanned cards too degraded to confirm the sign-off or the reference
What is at stake
A check accepted on an incomplete card set carries hidden tasks that were never confirmed done, and those surface at the next inspection or the next diligence pass with less time to correct them. Missing or unauthorized sign-offs can force the task to be re-accomplished, which turns a records question into hangar time and an out-of-service tail.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Reconcile to the work scope
Match the closed cards against the tasks the check package called due.
Test the sign-offs
Confirm each stamp is present, legible, and carries valid authorization for the task.
Check the references
Verify each card cites the maintenance instruction revision in force when worked.
Assemble the exceptions
List failing cards and order them by what blocks return to service or handover.
What the buyer receives
- An exception list naming each card that fails a check and why
- A source map from each card to the instruction and authorization behind it
- A closure plan ordered by which cards block return to service or handover
Who uses the output
- Records teams reconciling a closed check before the tail returns to service
- Buyers confirming an accomplished check is backed by defensible cards
- CAMO leads relying on prior-operator sign-offs before they carry them forward
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Task cards are where the maintenance program status turns from a claim into evidence, so this review reads against the intervals the program review fixes and hands its unresolved findings to the non-routine review. The closure plan supports the return-to-service reconciliation after a heavy check and the check-completion pages of a redelivery binder.
Aircraft-specific considerations
CRJ heavy checks on high-utilization regional tails generate large routine card sets, and the aging-structure inspections this family carries add zonal and structural cards that are easy to lose across an operator change. Landing-gear and engine-related task cards draw the most scrutiny at resale, so their sign-offs and references are confirmed first.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
FAA and EASA differ on who may sign a given task and on how required-inspection items are evidenced, so a CRJ card set built under one system is checked against the authorization expectations of the system that will rely on it, and mismatches are flagged rather than assumed equivalent.
Regulatory limits
The review evaluates whether the closed cards evidence the check and lists what is unsupported. It does not re-accomplish a task, issue a return-to-service, or determine that the aircraft is airworthy.
What this review does not cover
- Re-performing or signing any maintenance task
- Issuing a return-to-service or approval for return to service
- Any airworthiness determination on the aircraft
Specific to this review
- A signed card that cites a superseded instruction is a real defect: the task was worked to data that was no longer current.
- Required-inspection items are the cards most often short a stamp because the second signature is a separate step that gets skipped under check pressure.
- On a scanned CRJ card set, image degradation itself is a finding, since a card that cannot be read cannot be relied on regardless of what it once showed.
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
What if the cards are scanned and some images are hard to read?
Illegible images are recorded as exceptions in their own right. A card that cannot be read cannot support the task it closed, so it is treated the same as a missing card until a legible original is produced.
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.