Task cards
Gulfstream G650 task-card evidence records review
This review checks that the closed task cards for a Gulfstream G650 actually prove the maintenance they claim, with proper sign-offs, inspection stamps, and references to the maintenance instructions used. It is run by or for the party evaluating or transferring a specific G650, most often after a heavy check or before a sale, when the closed card set has to stand up to scrutiny. A records specialist samples and reconciles the cards against the work package, confirms the sign-offs and stamps are complete, and ties each card to the instruction it was worked to. You receive an exception list of cards that do not close cleanly, a source map to the referenced instructions, and a closure plan for the sign-off and reference gaps.
When this review is needed
- A heavy check has just closed and the task-card set has to be verified before the aircraft returns to service credit.
- A G650 is under offer and the buyer wants the closed cards to prove the maintenance the status claims.
- Cards were closed at a shop whose sign-off and stamping practice differs from the operator's own.
- A task references a maintenance instruction whose revision or applicability has never been checked.
The problem
A task card is the evidence that a scheduled task was performed, and a card that is signed off but references the wrong instruction revision, or carries a missing inspection stamp, does not prove what the status says it does. On a G650 heavy check run at an independent shop, hundreds of cards close in a short window, and a systematic gap in stamping or referencing can propagate across the whole package before anyone reconciles it.
What gets reviewed
- Closed task cards reconciled against the work package they belong to
- Sign-offs and inspection stamps checked for completeness on each sampled card
- Required inspection items confirmed to carry the second sign-off the task demands
- Each card tied to the maintenance instruction and revision it was worked to
- Referenced instructions checked for applicability to this serial number and configuration
- Cards that do not close cleanly logged with the gap and the evidence needed to settle it
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 closed card carries the sign-offs and inspection stamps the task requires
- Required inspection items show the independent inspection sign-off where one is called for
- Every card references a maintenance instruction at a revision applicable to the aircraft
- The closed card set matches the work package with no cards missing or duplicated
- Referenced instructions apply to this serial number's configuration and effectivity
Evidence normally required
- The closed task-card set for the check or work event
- The work package or job cards defining the scope
- The maintenance instructions and revisions referenced by the cards
- The return-to-service documentation for the event
- The configuration and effectivity reference for the serial number
Common discrepancies
- A closed card missing the inspection stamp a required inspection item calls for
- A card referencing a maintenance instruction at a revision superseded before the work
- A card in the status that is absent from the closed set delivered with the package
- A sign-off pattern at one shop that skips a step the task actually requires
What is at stake
Cards that do not close cleanly put the task credit behind them in doubt, which can force re-inspection or re-accomplishment before the credit is relied on. A buyer who finds a pattern of incomplete sign-offs discounts the maintenance history broadly, and a missing inspection stamp on a required inspection item is particularly hard to remedy once the check is closed and the shop has released the aircraft.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Frame the card set
Match the closed cards to the work package and the tasks the event was meant to cover.
Check closure evidence
Confirm each sampled card carries the sign-offs and inspection stamps its task requires.
Tie card to instruction
Link each card to the maintenance instruction and revision applicable to the aircraft.
Log the exceptions
Record every card that does not close cleanly and the evidence needed to settle it.
What the buyer receives
- An exception list of task cards that do not close cleanly against the requirement
- A source map tying sampled cards to the instructions and revisions used
- A closure plan for the sign-off, stamp, and reference gaps found
Who uses the output
- Records teams verifying a heavy-check package before it is relied on for status credit
- Continuing-airworthiness teams confirming task credit rests on clean card evidence
- Asset and buyer teams reading the quality of the maintenance history from the closed cards
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The task-card review runs at the exit of a check or ahead of a transaction, testing whether the closed cards support the status they feed. Its exception list drives correction while the shop that closed the cards can still address the gaps, and the verified card set underpins the maintenance program status the aircraft is tracked against.
Aircraft-specific considerations
A G650 heavy check is frequently accomplished at an independent or manufacturer-authorized facility rather than an operator's own base, so the task cards arrive in that facility's format and sign-off convention rather than the operator's. That makes reconciling the closed set against the operator's tracked status a distinct step, because a card complete by the shop's convention can still miss a stamp the operator's program expects, and the review is scoped to catch those convention gaps.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
A G650 whose check evidence must satisfy an EASA CAMO as well as an FAA operator needs task cards whose sign-offs and references meet the receiving system's expectations, and an inspection sign-off acceptable under one may need supplementing for the other. The review flags cards whose closure will not satisfy the destination oversight.
Regulatory limits
The review verifies that the closed cards support the task credit they claim. It does not perform or re-perform any task, sign off a card, or make an airworthiness determination on the work accomplished.
What this review does not cover
- Performing or re-performing any task behind a card
- Signing off or re-stamping a task card
- Any airworthiness determination on the maintenance accomplished
Specific to this review
- A card can be fully signed and still fail to prove its task if it references a superseded or inapplicable instruction.
- A missing inspection stamp on a required inspection item is among the hardest gaps to remedy after a check closes.
- Convention differences between a shop's cards and an operator's program are a frequent, systematic source of card gaps.
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
Does a signed card always prove the task was properly done?
A signature is necessary but not sufficient. If the card references the wrong instruction revision, lacks a required inspection stamp, or does not match the applicable configuration, it does not prove the task as the status claims, and the review is what catches those cases.
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.