Task cards
Embraer E-Jet task-card records review
This review examines the closed routine task cards for a specific Embraer E-Jet and confirms each carries a valid sign-off, the required inspection stamps, and a reference to the maintenance instruction it accomplished. It is run at redelivery, during diligence, or after a heavy check when the card pack is the primary evidence the scheduled work was done. It checks that cards trace to the program task they close, that dual-inspection items carry both stamps, and that no card was signed against a superseded revision. You receive an exception list of cards that do not stand on their own, a source map to the referenced instructions, and a closure plan for the pack.
When this review is needed
- A heavy check just closed and the card pack is the evidence the buyer or lessor will read.
- Redelivery requires the closed routine cards to demonstrate the scheduled work behind each task line.
- A status list claims a task complete and the card that closes it has to be produced and validated.
- The card pack arrived from a prior operator and its sign-offs and stamps have never been checked.
The problem
A task-card pack from an E-Jet heavy check can run to thousands of cards, and the ones that matter are the few whose sign-off is missing, whose inspection stamp is absent, or whose reference points to a revision that was already superseded when the work was signed. A status list flips a task to complete the moment a card is closed in the system, whether or not the physical card actually supports it. Finding the weak card in the stack is slow, and it is precisely the card a diligence team will pull.
What gets reviewed
- Closed routine cards checked for a valid sign-off and the correct mechanic and inspector entries
- Required-inspection items confirmed to carry both the accomplishing and inspecting stamps
- Each card's reference to the maintenance instruction it accomplished, at the applicable revision
- Cards traced to the program task they close, so the status line has a supporting document
- Corrections and re-work on a card recorded so the final sign-off follows the accomplished state
- Cards flagged where the referenced instruction was superseded before the work was signed
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 sampled card carries a legible sign-off with the accomplishing entry and date
- Required-inspection items show the second stamp the item calls for
- The instruction reference on the card matches the revision in effect at accomplishment
- Each closed card resolves to a program task on the status list, and each such task to a card
- Cards with corrections show a final sign-off consistent with the corrected work
Evidence normally required
- The closed task-card pack for the check or period under review
- The maintenance-program task list the cards are meant to close
- The referenced maintenance instructions at their applicable revisions
- The inspection-authority and stamp register for the accomplishing organization
- The status list that claims the associated tasks complete
Common discrepancies
- A closed card with no accomplishing sign-off behind a task shown complete on the status list
- A required-inspection item missing its second stamp
- A card referencing an instruction revision that was already superseded at accomplishment
- A status line marked done with no card in the pack that closes it
What is at stake
A task shown complete on a card that cannot support itself is a task the next operator may have to re-accomplish, and at heavy-check scale that is real cost and downtime. A missing required-inspection stamp on a dual-inspection item can invalidate the return to service for that task. Cards signed against a superseded instruction leave the work done to the wrong standard, which surfaces when the reference is checked at redelivery.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Pull the population
Assemble the closed cards for the period and map them to the program tasks they close.
Check sign-offs and stamps
Confirm each card carries the accomplishing entry and any required second stamp.
Verify the reference
Match each card's instruction reference to the revision in effect at accomplishment.
List the weak cards
Flag cards that do not support their task and map each to its source.
What the buyer receives
- An exception list of cards that do not support the task they close
- A source map linking each sampled card to its referenced instruction and program task
- A closure plan for the cards that need a supporting stamp, sign-off, or re-reference
Who uses the output
- Records teams building the redelivery card pack a counterparty will accept
- Asset managers reading whether a closed check actually stands behind its status list
- Continuing-airworthiness teams confirming task completions before they rely on them
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The card review is the evidence layer beneath the maintenance-program status: the program says a task is due, the status list says it was done, and the card is what proves it. It runs after a check closes or at redelivery, and its exceptions feed the remediation that has to clear before the status list can be relied on.
Aircraft-specific considerations
E-Jets flown on dense regional schedules cycle through their lighter checks frequently, so the card population is large and the routine cards repeat often, which makes a systematic sign-off or stamp gap propagate across many cards before anyone notices. Cabin and avionics upgrade work common on these aircraft generates its own card sets that reference modification instructions rather than the base program, and those are checked against the modification approval, not the routine task list.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
Sign-off and required-inspection conventions differ between an FAA-based organization and an EASA Part-145 one, so the same card pack is read against the accomplishing organization's own authorization system. The review notes where a card acceptable in its origin system needs an additional entry to satisfy the receiving side.
Regulatory limits
The review evaluates whether each card supports the task it closes. It does not re-perform the maintenance, issue or restore a return to service, or determine that a task was accomplished airworthily.
What this review does not cover
- Re-accomplishing the maintenance behind a weak or missing card
- Issuing a return to service or any sign-off on the operator's behalf
- Any airworthiness determination on the accomplished work
Specific to this review
- A status list flips a task to complete when the card is closed in the system, so the system state can lead the physical evidence.
- Dual-inspection items fail most often on the second stamp, because the first is captured by the accomplishing mechanic as a matter of routine.
- A superseded instruction reference is a silent defect: the card looks closed and signed, but the work was done to the wrong revision.
- A heavy-check pack on an E-Jet runs to thousands of cards, so a systematic sign-off or stamp gap propagates across many cards before anyone catches the pattern.
- Upgrade cards reference a modification instruction rather than the base program, so they are checked against the modification approval, not the routine task list.
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
Do you check every card or a sample?
Both, depending on the purpose. Required-inspection items and high-value tasks are checked individually; the broader routine population is sampled to detect systematic sign-off or stamp gaps, then widened wherever the sample shows a pattern. The exception list states which cards were checked in full and which by sample.
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.