French-built business jet asset
Dassault Falcon aircraft records review
A Falcon records review examines the file of a French-built business jet against its asserted configuration and compliance status. Lessors, owners, and acquisition teams use it before a purchase, a redelivery, or a re-lease. The work weighs the inspection-program history, AD and SB status under the authority of registration, the structural repair record and the data each repair cites, and the life-limited part trace for every engine on the airframe. You receive a discrepancy register organized by airframe, engine, and repair section, plus the evidence each finding needs to close.
When this review is needed
- A jet with a long service life is changing hands and every structural repair on the airframe has to be matched to approved or acceptable data.
- The aircraft has flown under more than one authority of registration and the AD basis must be re-derived before it moves again.
- A trijet variant means three independent engine record sets have to be reconciled against the status lists.
- A redelivery requires the structural repair manual references to be supported by the substantiation data the entries cite.
The problem
Repairs on an older airframe are often logged by a manual or report reference, with the assumption that the data sits somewhere in the file. When it does not, the buyer inherits a repair it cannot substantiate. AD status carried forward across a change of authority compounds the problem, because applicability that was once correct may no longer match the configuration the aircraft is being sold under.
What gets reviewed
- Inspection-program compliance against the revision in force and the basis it was approved under
- Airworthiness Directive applicability and status assessed under the authority of registration
- Structural repair records and the approved or acceptable data each one relies on
- Principal structural element and repair-manual references checked against the substantiation behind them
- Life-limited part trace for each engine fitted to the airframe
- Status lists reconciled against logbooks, work packs, and release paperwork
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
- AD applicability is derived from the actual configuration rather than read off a prior status summary
- Each structural repair names a data source whose document is present and matches the logbook entry
- Repairs against principal structural elements carry substantiation appropriate to their location and category
- Every engine on the airframe has a continuous, internally consistent LLP trace across cycles and releases
- Inspection-program sign-offs line up with the program revision that was current at the time of signing
Evidence normally required
- Current AD and SB status reports under the applicable authority
- Airframe and per-engine logbooks or digital records
- Structural repair sheets, repair-manual references, and the approved data they cite
- Engine LLP status lists with release certificates for each engine
- The inspection program and its revision history
Common discrepancies
- A structural repair recorded by reference number with the approved data missing from the file
- AD status carried over from a prior authority without re-checking applicability to the current configuration
- One of the engine LLP traces breaking at a shop visit while the others reconcile cleanly
- Repair substantiation that does not match the structural location it was applied to
- Inspection tasks signed against a superseded program revision
What is at stake
A structural repair without its approved data may have to be re-substantiated, re-worked, or treated as a liability against the sale price. AD applicability inherited from a prior registry rather than re-derived can leave a directive open that everyone believed was satisfied, and the gap surfaces at the worst possible moment in the transaction.
How the work runs
Fix the basis
Confirm the authority of registration, the inspection program in force, and the AD basis the aircraft is actually being assessed under.
Substantiate the structure
Match each structural repair to its approved or acceptable data and check the substantiation against the location it was applied to.
Trace each engine
Reconcile the LLP trace for every engine independently against cycles, shop reports, and release paperwork.
Register and close
Record each finding by section with its source and a closure path, naming the party responsible.
What the buyer receives
- A discrepancy register organized by airframe, engine, and repair section
- A repair-approval gap list showing what is missing or inconsistent for each repair
- An AD-applicability note where status was inherited rather than re-derived
- A closure path for each open item naming the responsible party
Who uses the output
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The review sits ahead of technical acceptance so structural and AD findings can be priced or closed while the outgoing party still holds the obligation. Its output anchors the repair dossier and the AD baseline that travel with the aircraft.
Start with a single asset
Start with a single tail and expand once the workflow is proven.
Aircraft-specific considerations
A trijet variant means three engines have to be traced and reconciled independently, and the type's structural repair manual and principal structural element list drive which repairs are decisive, so the review weighs structural substantiation more heavily than on a young airframe.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
When the aircraft has changed authority of registration, AD applicability and acceptance of the prior maintenance program have to be re-established for the receiving authority, and a repair approved under one authority is not automatically accepted under another.
Regulatory limits
The review confirms that the repair and compliance records are complete, consistent, and traceable. It does not approve a repair, determine airworthiness, or guarantee that an authority or buyer will accept the aircraft.
What this review does not cover
- Physical inspection of the structure or the engines
- Re-substantiation or design approval of a repair
- Issuance of any AD compliance finding or airworthiness determination
Specific to this review
- A trijet variant adds a third engine record set traced independently, which is a common source of asymmetry between the status lists.
- On an aircraft that has operated under more than one authority, AD applicability is re-derived from configuration rather than inherited from the prior status list.
- Structural repairs logged by reference number are checked against the actual substantiation data, because the reference alone does not prove the data is in the file.
Sources
U.S. Government (eCFR). The legal basis for issuing and enforcing Airworthiness Directives on U.S.-registered products.
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.
Frequently asked questions
Why re-derive AD applicability instead of trusting the status list?
Applicability depends on configuration, and a Falcon that has changed authority or carried modifications may no longer match the basis its prior status list assumed. Re-deriving from configuration catches directives that were closed against the wrong assumptions.
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.
Walk through your situation with an engineer who has done this work.