LEAP non-routines
Non-routine records review for LEAP engine assets
This review works through the non-routine register on a specific LEAP engine and confirms that each defect ran from finding to disposition to a closed corrective action. It is run for a lessor, airline, or manager assessing, transferring, or maintaining the engine, usually where a shop visit or check generated a batch of non-routines. It examines the defect cards, engineering dispositions, corrective-action entries, and final sign-offs, checking that each thread closes on approved data. You receive a supported exception list, a source map, and a closure plan for this engine.
When this review is needed
- A LEAP shop visit or check produced non-routines and each finding has to be traced to a closed corrective action.
- The non-routine register lists defects but the dispositions and sign-offs are scattered across the package.
- A buyer wants confirmation that no non-routine was left open when the engine returned to service.
- A defect was dispositioned by engineering and the approved data behind the disposition needs checking.
The problem
Non-routines are where a shop visit's real story lives: a borescope finding, a dimensional check out of limits, a part rejected at strip. Each one has to run from the defect card to an engineering disposition to a corrective action that is signed off, and the disposition itself has to rest on approved data. When a defect card has no matching closure, or a disposition references a repair whose basis was never captured, the register shows an open thread the release was supposed to have closed.
What gets reviewed
- Each defect card matched to the engineering disposition raised against it
- Dispositions checked for the approved data or acceptable basis they rely on
- Corrective-action entries tied to the defect they resolve
- Final sign-offs present for every non-routine before release
- The non-routine register reconciled to the cards and dispositions it lists
- Findings deferred rather than closed carried onto a tracked deferral
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 defect card on the register has a matching disposition and corrective action
- Each disposition names the approved data or basis the corrective action used
- Corrective-action entries identify the defect and the work that closed it
- No non-routine reached release without a final sign-off
- Deferred findings appear on a deferral record rather than being dropped
Evidence normally required
- The non-routine register for the shop visit or check on the engine
- Defect cards and the engineering dispositions raised against them
- Corrective-action entries and their approved-data references
- Final sign-offs and the release for the visit
- Any deferral records covering findings left open
Common discrepancies
- A defect card with no corresponding disposition or corrective action on file
- A disposition that references a repair basis that was never captured
- A corrective action that does not identify the defect it was meant to close
- A non-routine that reached release without a final sign-off
What is at stake
An unclosed non-routine undercuts the release for the whole visit, because the engine went back to service with a defect whose resolution is not documented. At a transaction, an open thread on the register is a direct question about the engine's condition, and a disposition without its approved data can force the affected part to be re-examined or replaced.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Pull the register
Assemble the non-routines raised at each visit and the defect cards behind them.
Trace each thread
Follow every defect from disposition to corrective action to final sign-off.
Check the basis
Confirm each disposition rests on approved data or a stated acceptable basis.
List the open threads
Flag non-routines that did not close and the evidence that would resolve them.
What the buyer receives
- A supported exception list of non-routines that did not close
- A source map linking each defect to its disposition and corrective action
- A closure plan for the open threads that can still be resolved
Who uses the output
- Asset managers reading open non-routines as questions about engine condition
- Records teams recovering the dispositions and sign-offs the register references
- Engineering reviewing a disposition whose approved-data basis is thin
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The non-routine review completes the shop-visit picture that the routine cards and release only partly tell. It runs before the visit history feeds a diligence data room or the next induction, so the register a counterparty reads shows every finding closed on documented data rather than left as an open thread.
Aircraft-specific considerations
On a LEAP engine, non-routines cluster around the hot section and are often dispositioned against approved repair data, so the review pays attention to whether that data rode along with the digital disposition. Because the fleet is newer, a single visit's non-routine register may carry more weight in the records than a long service history, so an unclosed thread is more visible against the shorter record.
Regulatory limits
The review confirms each non-routine traces to a documented, supported closure. It does not disposition a defect, approve a corrective action, return the engine to service, or make an airworthiness determination on any finding.
What this review does not cover
- Dispositioning a defect or performing a corrective action
- Approving the data behind a disposition
- Any airworthiness determination on the findings
Specific to this review
- On a LEAP engine the non-routine register is often the most honest record of a shop visit, because it captures the findings the workscope did not anticipate.
- A disposition stored in a digital system frequently drops the approved-data reference, leaving a corrective action that reads as unsupported even when it was sound.
- An open thread on the register is read at a transaction as a condition question, not a paperwork one, so it carries disproportionate weight.
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
The engine was released, so weren't all the non-routines closed?
The release asserts the engine is serviceable, but it does not by itself document how each finding was resolved. A defect card with no matching disposition and sign-off leaves an open thread on the register that a buyer will question, regardless of the release, which is why the register is traced card by card.
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.