Skip to content

LEAP AD status

LEAP engine Airworthiness Directive status records review

A LEAP engine AD status review confirms that the recorded Airworthiness Directive position is complete, correctly applied, and backed by accomplishment evidence. Records teams and asset managers use it when the AD list is being relied on for a trade or a program entry. The work tests applicability for each AD against the engine's configuration, checks that accomplishment and method of compliance are documented, and flags any AD carried on the summary without support. You receive a marked AD status list, an evidence note per directive, and a plan to close the items that cannot yet be shown complied.

When this review is needed

  • An AD status list is being relied on for a trade and its support has not been checked.
  • An AD's applicability to this engine's configuration is uncertain.
  • A method of compliance is recorded but the accomplishment evidence is not attached.
  • A new directive has issued and the list must be brought current against it.

The problem

A LEAP fleet is young, so the AD list is short, but that makes each entry more load-bearing and a single unsupported item more visible. A records team relying on the status list has applicability notes and method-of-compliance references but not always the accomplishment record that would prove the work was done. The list reads as complete while individual directives rest on a summary rather than the evidence behind it.

What gets reviewed

  • Applicability of each AD tested against the engine's recorded configuration
  • Accomplishment records located for every AD shown complied
  • The recorded method of compliance confirmed against the AD's requirement
  • Recurring and terminating actions distinguished and their next-due tracked
  • Superseded and revised directives reconciled to the current version
  • A residual list of ADs carried on the summary without supporting evidence

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 AD on the list is applicable to this engine's configuration and effectivity
  • Every AD shown complied has an accomplishment record, not just a status entry
  • The recorded method of compliance actually satisfies the AD's requirement
  • Recurring ADs show the last accomplishment and a correctly computed next-due
  • Superseded ADs are reconciled to the superseding version rather than double-counted

Evidence normally required

  • The current AD status list for the engine serial number
  • Accomplishment records and work packages for the ADs shown complied
  • The engine configuration and Service Bulletin status for applicability
  • The directives themselves in their applicable revision
  • Any prior AD review or audit finding list

Common discrepancies

  • An AD shown complied with no accomplishment record behind it
  • An AD listed as applicable that the engine's configuration excludes
  • A recurring AD with a next-due computed from the wrong basis
  • A superseded AD still carried separately from its superseding version

What is at stake

An AD shown complied without accomplishment evidence is the kind of gap a buyer or authority challenges, and on a newer fleet where the paperwork should be readily available its absence draws attention. Getting applicability wrong is equally costly: an AD applied to the wrong configuration inflates the list, and one missed on an applicable configuration leaves a real compliance gap.

Move from findings to resolution

Move from findings to a documented resolution path.

How the work runs

01

Test applicability

Check each AD against the engine's recorded configuration and effectivity before assessing compliance.

02

Find the accomplishment

Locate the record proving each complied AD was actually done to the required method.

03

Handle recurring and superseded

Compute next-dues for recurring ADs and reconcile superseded directives to their current version.

04

Report the open items

Mark unsupported ADs, note the evidence for the rest, and set out a closure plan.

What the buyer receives

  • A marked AD status list showing each directive as supported or open
  • An evidence note per AD tying compliance to its accomplishment record
  • A closure plan for the ADs that cannot yet be shown complied

Who uses the output

  • Asset managers relying on the AD position in a trade
  • Records teams bringing the AD list current and defensible
  • CAMO staff carrying the recurring-AD schedule onto their program

How the work fits into the transaction or program

AD status is a cornerstone of the engine's continued-airworthiness picture, and a verified list feeds the airworthiness-review and export packages directly. Getting applicability and accomplishment right here means later reviews can present the AD position without re-deriving it, and the recurring-AD next-dues flow into the program the new operator will run.

Aircraft-specific considerations

LEAP engine records put more weight on current configuration, LLP status, shop-visit release evidence, and digital maintenance records than on decades of legacy paper, so AD applicability turns on a configuration that is well documented but still evolving as the fleet matures. Newer directives on this family can require configuration checks the shorter service history has not yet settled, so applicability is tested against the specific build rather than assumed from the model.

Regulatory limits

The review reports whether the recorded AD position is supported by the evidence on file. It does not determine airworthiness, grant an alternative method of compliance, or accept compliance on the operator's behalf, and it does not replace the operator's own AD management.

What this review does not cover

  • Granting or approving any alternative method of compliance
  • Performing or signing off the AD accomplishment itself
  • Determining the airworthiness of the engine

Specific to this review

  • On a young LEAP fleet the AD list is short, which makes each unsupported entry disproportionately visible to a buyer or authority.
  • AD applicability on this family turns on a configuration that is still maturing, so an AD can apply to one build of the same model and not another.
  • Because the fleet is recent, the accomplishment paperwork should exist, so a missing record is more often a filing failure than a genuinely lost document.

Sources

Frequently asked questions

Why check applicability when the list already names the applicable ADs?

Because a list can name an AD that the specific engine's configuration excludes, or miss one an applicable build requires. On the LEAP family, where configuration is still settling, testing applicability against the actual build is what keeps the list from being inflated or short.

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.