LEAP task cards
Task-card records review for LEAP engine assets
This review checks the closed task-card set for a specific LEAP engine and confirms that each card actually evidences the task it claims to close. It is run for a lessor, airline, or manager evaluating, transferring, or maintaining the engine, usually when a batch of cards has to stand on its own for a buyer or auditor. It works through the routine cards, sign-offs, inspection stamps, and referenced instructions, checking that each closure is complete and points to the right data. You receive a supported exception list, a source map, and a closure plan for this engine.
When this review is needed
- A closed task-card set for a LEAP engine has to stand up to a buyer's or auditor's line-by-line review.
- Cards were signed off against a manual reference and the revision in force at closure needs confirming.
- A batch of routine cards has accumulated and no one has checked that each closure is complete.
- A card claims a task was accomplished but the inspection stamp or dual sign-off is missing.
The problem
A closed task card is only worth what it proves. On a LEAP engine, a routine card has to carry the mechanic sign-off, any required inspection stamp, and a reference to the instruction it followed at the revision in force when the work was done. A card that references a superseded revision, or closes without the second stamp an inspection task requires, does not evidence the task even when the work happened. In a large card set those gaps hide until someone reads every card.
What gets reviewed
- Routine task cards checked for complete sign-off and required inspection stamps
- Each card's reference to the maintenance instruction and the revision in force at closure
- Dual sign-off present where the task requires an independent inspection
- Cards reconciled to the workscope or check they were raised under
- Deferred or open items on a card carried forward rather than silently dropped
- The closed card set reconciled to the status it is meant to support
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 card carries the sign-off and any inspection stamp the task requires
- The instruction referenced on the card was at the revision in force when the work closed
- Independent-inspection tasks show the second stamp, not a single sign-off
- Cards tie back to the check or workscope that raised them
- Items left open on a card are carried forward on a deferral record
Evidence normally required
- The closed task-card set for the engine serial number
- The maintenance instructions and revision history referenced by the cards
- The workscope or check package the cards were raised under
- Any deferral or carry-forward records tied to open card items
- The status the card set is meant to support
Common discrepancies
- A card referencing a manual revision that was already superseded at closure
- An independent-inspection task closed with a single sign-off
- A card whose open item was never carried onto a deferral record
- A closed card that does not reconcile to the check that should have raised it
What is at stake
A task-card set with incomplete closures weakens the whole maintenance history built on it, because a card that cannot prove its task leaves the corresponding status unsupported. At a transaction, a buyer working through the cards treats each incomplete closure as a task to re-accomplish or a discount to demand, and reconstructing a sign-off after the fact is rarely possible.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Assemble the card set
Gather the closed cards for the engine and the checks that raised them.
Check each closure
Confirm sign-offs, inspection stamps, and referenced revisions on every card.
Reconcile to status
Tie the card set back to the status and workscope it is meant to support.
List the incomplete cards
Flag cards that do not evidence their task and the evidence that would close them.
What the buyer receives
- A supported exception list of cards that do not evidence their task
- A source map linking each card to its instruction, revision, and check
- A closure plan for the cards whose gaps can still be resolved
Who uses the output
- Records teams confirming a card set will survive a line-by-line diligence read
- Asset managers gauging how many cards carry unsupported closures
- Continuing-airworthiness teams relying on the cards behind the status
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The task-card review sits under the engine's status and program records, testing whether the closures those records rest on actually hold. It runs before the card set feeds a redelivery binder or a diligence data room, so the cards a counterparty reads prove the tasks the status claims.
Aircraft-specific considerations
LEAP task cards are frequently issued and closed electronically, so the review checks that the electronic sign-off captured the reviser and the instruction revision, which paper cards recorded by hand. On this newer family the card set is often the most granular evidence available, so a missing electronic stamp carries the same weight a missing handwritten one would on an older engine.
Regulatory limits
The review confirms each card is complete and references the correct data. It does not accomplish or re-accomplish any task, sign off a card, return the engine to service, or make an airworthiness determination.
What this review does not cover
- Accomplishing or re-accomplishing any task on a card
- Signing off or reissuing a task card
- Any airworthiness determination on the engine
Specific to this review
- A LEAP card that references a superseded manual revision is a frequent finding, because electronic card systems can pin an old revision when a card is raised and not update it at closure.
- Independent-inspection tasks are where single sign-offs slip through, and they are the closures a diligence reviewer checks first.
- An open card item that was never moved onto a deferral record is invisible in the status until a buyer reads the card itself.
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 work was clearly done. Why does a missing inspection stamp matter?
An independent-inspection task is only evidenced by the second stamp. Without it, the card proves the mechanic's work but not the inspection the task required, so the closure is incomplete on paper. A buyer or auditor reads the card, not the shop floor, and treats the gap as an open task.
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.