Non-routine findings
Embraer E-Jet non-routine card records review
This review works through the non-routine cards raised during an Embraer E-Jet's checks and confirms each defect was dispositioned by an appropriate authority, corrected against acceptable data, and closed with a final sign-off. It is run after a heavy check or at redelivery, when the non-routine register is where the real story of an airframe's condition lives. It checks that each finding has a disposition, that the disposition names an approved or acceptable basis, and that the corrective action and its sign-off actually close the card. You receive an exception list of open or under-supported findings, a source map to the dispositions and data used, and a closure plan.
When this review is needed
- A heavy check produced a long non-routine register and each finding's closure has to be confirmed before the aircraft is accepted.
- Redelivery hinges on demonstrating that defects raised during the check were corrected, with evidence beyond a register entry.
- A finding was dispositioned as a repair and the approval basis behind that repair has to be located.
- The register was inherited from a prior operator and no one has confirmed the cards actually close.
The problem
Non-routine cards are where a check discovers what the routine tasks did not predict, so they carry the findings most likely to affect value, and they are also the cards most likely to close loosely. A defect gets dispositioned in a hurry against the pressure to release the aircraft, the corrective action is signed before the disposition is fully substantiated, and the register shows the card closed while the basis for the repair sits somewhere unproven. On an E-Jet that has run dense regional operations, structural and systems findings accumulate faster than a light-utilization template suggests.
What gets reviewed
- Each non-routine card confirmed to carry an engineering or authorized disposition
- Dispositions checked for a named approved or acceptable data basis, especially for repairs
- Corrective actions matched to the disposition they implement
- Final sign-offs confirmed to close the card in a logical order after the corrective action
- Findings that reference a repair traced to the repair approval and substantiation
- Open or deferred non-routines identified and reconciled against the deferral 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 non-routine card shows a disposition from an authority appropriate to the finding
- Repair dispositions cite an approved or acceptable data basis that names the defect and location
- The corrective action recorded on the card implements the disposition it references
- The final sign-off follows the corrective action in date order, not before it
- Deferred findings appear on the deferral records rather than reading closed on the register
Evidence normally required
- The non-routine register for the check or period under review
- The individual non-routine cards with their dispositions and sign-offs
- Repair approval and substantiation data referenced by any repair disposition
- The deferral or open-item records for findings not corrected during the check
- The associated routine cards that raised the findings, where relevant
Common discrepancies
- A non-routine card marked closed with a disposition but no substantiating data behind the repair
- A corrective action signed before the disposition that authorizes it
- A finding that should sit on the deferral records reading as closed on the register
- A structural repair disposition with no reference to the approved data it relied on
What is at stake
A finding closed without a substantiated disposition can force re-work when the basis is checked, and if the disposition was a repair, an unsupported approval can require the repair to be re-substantiated or removed. Corrective actions signed ahead of their disposition break the logical order a reviewer expects, which invites deeper scrutiny of the whole register. A finding that reads closed but is not defensible transfers straight to the next owner.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Open the register
List every non-routine raised in the period and pull the card behind each line.
Check the disposition
Confirm each finding was dispositioned by an appropriate authority against a named basis.
Confirm the closure
Match the corrective action and final sign-off to the disposition in the right order.
Flag the exceptions
Identify open, deferred, or under-supported findings and map each to its source.
What the buyer receives
- An exception list of findings that are open, deferred without record, or under-supported
- A source map tying each disposition and repair to its approval and substantiation data
- A closure plan for the cards that need substantiation or a corrected closure order
Who uses the output
- Asset managers reading an airframe's true condition from its non-routine history
- Engineering deciding how to treat a finding whose disposition lacks a traceable basis
- Records teams closing the register before redelivery or acceptance
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The non-routine review complements the routine card check: routine cards prove the scheduled work happened, non-routines prove the unscheduled findings were resolved. It runs after a check or at redelivery, and its exceptions feed remediation for repairs that need substantiation and closures that need reordering before the register can be relied on.
Aircraft-specific considerations
Short-sector regional flying puts more pressure cycles and more turnaround handling on an E-Jet than a comparable narrowbody sees in the same calendar time, so structural and cabin non-routines tend to run higher, and their dispositions more often invoke the structural repair manual. The review pays particular attention to structural findings, because those are the dispositions whose approval basis is most consequential at resale.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
The acceptable basis for a repair disposition differs between an FAA context and an EASA one, and a finding dispositioned under one system can need a different substantiating record to be relied on under the other. The review flags dispositions whose basis will not carry across the transfer without additional evidence.
Regulatory limits
The review reads the non-routine records and reports whether each finding is dispositioned, corrected, and closed with evidence. It does not disposition a finding, approve a repair, issue a return to service, or make an airworthiness determination.
What this review does not cover
- Dispositioning any finding or authorizing a repair
- Performing or re-performing corrective action on a defect
- Any airworthiness determination on the condition the findings describe
Specific to this review
- Non-routines carry the findings routine tasks did not predict, so they hold most of the condition risk in a check pack.
- A repair disposition without its substantiating data is the most expensive closure to fix, because the repair may have to be re-substantiated or removed.
- Date order matters: a corrective action signed before its disposition is a genuine defect, not a clerical one, because it means the fix preceded its authorization.
- A finding that belongs on the deferral records but reads closed on the register overstates the aircraft's condition and hides a live open item.
- Structural non-routines run higher on hard-flown regional airframes, and their dispositions invoke the structural repair manual, whose basis is the most consequential to check at resale.
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 do non-routine cards need more scrutiny than routine ones?
Routine cards close a known task to a known instruction. Non-routines close a finding that was discovered during the check, so each one needs an engineering disposition and, for a repair, an approved basis. That is more places for a closure to be weak, and non-routines carry the findings that most affect an airframe's value.
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.