GTF task cards
Geared turbofan engine task-card records review
This review confirms that the routine task cards closed against a geared turbofan engine were completed with the right sign-offs and against the right maintenance instructions. It is run when a GTF asset is being evaluated, transferred, or held and the closed card set has to hold up under scrutiny. It checks card sign-offs, inspection stamps, the instructions each card references, and whether the set matches what the program actually called for. You receive an exception list, a source map from each card to its instruction, and a closure plan for the serial number.
When this review is needed
- A shop visit closed and the buyer wants the task-card package verified before it is relied on.
- A diligence pass flagged the card set as thin and someone has to confirm what was actually completed.
- An inspection stamp or sign-off is questioned and the referenced instruction has to be checked.
- The closed cards need to reconcile to the program before the engine moves to a new operator.
The problem
A closed card set looks complete until you test whether each card carries the sign-off, the inspection stamp, and the instruction reference that make it defensible. On a geared turbofan the card packages come from shop visits under a fast-revising program, so a card can reference a superseded revision of its instruction, or close against a task the current program no longer contains. Volume hides these, and the card that fails is rarely the one anyone opens first.
What gets reviewed
- Routine card completeness against the tasks the applicable program called for
- Sign-offs and certifying stamps present and attributable on each closed card
- Inspection stamps where the task requires an independent or required inspection
- The maintenance instruction each card references, at the correct revision
- Cards reconciled to the shop-visit package they were closed under
- Open or deferred cards carried as tracked exceptions with their basis
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 routine task the program called for has a corresponding closed card in the set
- Each card carries the certifying sign-off and, where required, the independent inspection stamp
- The instruction a card references matches the revision approved for the work
- Card closure dates and utilization agree with the shop-visit package and the logbooks
- No card closes against a task the applicable program revision does not contain
Evidence normally required
- The closed task-card set for the engine or its shop visits
- The applicable maintenance program task list for reconciliation
- The referenced maintenance instructions at their relevant revisions
- Shop-visit reports the card packages were closed under
- Sign-off and stamp authority records for the certifying personnel
Common discrepancies
- A card referencing a superseded revision of its maintenance instruction
- A required inspection task closed without the independent inspection stamp
- A routine card the program called for that is missing from the closed set
- A card closing against a task the current program revision no longer contains
What is at stake
A card closed against the wrong instruction revision, or missing an inspection stamp, weakens the whole event it belongs to. At the next transaction or shop induction the buyer reopens the package, and a card that cannot be tied to an approved instruction can force the task to be re-accomplished rather than accepted on its paperwork.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Reconcile to the program
Match the closed card set against the tasks the applicable program revision called for.
Test each closure
Confirm sign-offs, required-inspection stamps, and the referenced instruction revision on each card.
Tie cards to the event
Reconcile card dates and utilization to the shop-visit package and the logbooks.
List the gaps
Record missing, unstamped, or mis-referenced cards and order the closure evidence.
What the buyer receives
- An exception list of cards with missing sign-offs, stamps, or instruction references
- A source map linking each card to the instruction and revision it was worked under
- A closure plan for the missing or unsupported cards on the serial number
Who uses the output
- Records teams confirming a shop-visit card package before it enters the file
- Asset managers pricing an engine against a card set that has been verified
- Continuing-airworthiness teams accepting the closed cards onto the receiving program
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Task-card verification sits under the program review and above the non-routine work. Once the applicable program revision is fixed, the closed cards are the evidence that the routine tasks under it were done, and any defect a card raised feeds into the non-routine records the engine also carries.
Aircraft-specific considerations
Geared turbofan card packages arrive from shop visits under a program that revises frequently, so instruction-revision mismatches are more common here than on a mature engine. Module build cards and the gearbox inspection set carry required-inspection steps whose stamps are checked specifically, because a missing stamp on those tasks is harder to remedy after the fact.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
Sign-off and certifying authority differ between an FAA and an EASA environment, so cards closed under one system carry stamps that a receiving operator in the other has to map to its own authorities. The review flags cards whose certifying basis does not translate cleanly across the two systems.
Regulatory limits
The review checks that the closed cards are complete and reference approved data. It does not re-accomplish a task, issue a return-to-service, or determine that the engine is airworthy.
What this review does not cover
- Re-performing or signing off any task on the engine
- Issuing a return-to-service or certifying statement
- Any airworthiness determination on the engine
Specific to this review
- On a fast-revising program the most frequent card defect is a reference to a superseded instruction revision, not a missing signature.
- Required-inspection stamps on module build and gearbox cards are the hardest to remedy after the fact, so they are checked first.
- A card that closes against a task the current program no longer contains signals the engine was worked to an out-of-date revision.
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 makes a task card unacceptable at a later review?
A card fails when it cannot be tied to an approved instruction at the right revision, when a required inspection has no independent stamp, or when it closes a task the applicable program does not contain. Any of those forces the work to be re-substantiated or re-accomplished rather than accepted on its paperwork.
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.