Task-card records
Pilatus PC-12 closed task-card evidence records review
This review checks that the closed task cards on a Pilatus PC-12 were signed off completely and reference the maintenance instructions they came from. A records specialist runs it for an owner, buyer, or continuing-airworthiness lead who needs the task history to be evidence rather than a stack of closed cards. It reads routine cards for complete sign-offs and inspection stamps, confirms each card ties to its source instruction, and checks the card set against the program tasks it was meant to accomplish. You receive an exception list for the task-card set, a source map from card to instruction, and a plan to close the cards that fall short.
When this review is needed
- A PC-12 is being sold and the buyer will read the closed task cards for the sign-off evidence behind them.
- A check package closed recently and the card set has not been reviewed for completeness.
- Inspection tasks require a stamp that may be missing from cards marked complete.
- The aircraft is transferring and the receiving side needs each card to reference its source instruction.
The problem
A closed task card can look complete while a required inspection stamp is absent, a mechanic sign-off is missing on a two-stage task, or the card names no source instruction to prove what it was accomplishing. On an owner-managed PC-12 the cards may come from more than one shop with different card formats, so the fields that matter are in different places and easy to overlook. The set reads as done because every card is stamped closed, not because every card carries the evidence it should.
What gets reviewed
- Routine cards read for complete mechanic and inspector sign-offs
- Inspection tasks checked for the stamp the task requires
- Each card tied back to the source maintenance instruction it accomplishes
- Two-stage and duplicate-inspection tasks checked for both required signatures
- The closed card set reconciled against the program tasks it was meant to cover
- Card references confirmed against the revision of the instruction in force at the time
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 the task requires, including inspection stamps
- A two-stage task shows both the mechanic and the inspector signatures
- Every card references the source maintenance instruction it accomplishes
- The card set covers the program tasks it was intended to close, with none missing
- Card instruction references match the revision in force when the work was done
Evidence normally required
- The closed task-card set for the check or period under review
- The maintenance program task list the cards were meant to accomplish
- The source maintenance instructions the cards reference
- The work package or check paperwork the cards belong to
Common discrepancies
- A card marked complete with the required inspection stamp missing
- A two-stage task closed with only the mechanic signature present
- A card that names no source instruction to prove what it accomplished
- A card set that leaves one intended program task with no card at all
What is at stake
A task card missing a sign-off or an inspection stamp cannot prove the task was accomplished as required, and a buyer or auditor treats an incomplete card as an open item. A card that references no source instruction leaves the reviewer unable to confirm what standard the work met, which forces a re-accomplishment or a reconstruction that lands on the owner at the worst time.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Sort by source
Group the cards by the shop and card format they came from so each layout is read on its own terms.
Read the sign-offs
Confirm each card carries the mechanic and inspector signatures and stamps the task requires.
Tie to instruction
Match every card to the source instruction and revision it accomplishes.
Reconcile and flag
Check the set against the program tasks and list the cards that fall short.
What the buyer receives
- An exception list for the task-card set where sign-offs or references fall short
- A source map from each card to the maintenance instruction it accomplishes
- A closure plan to complete, re-accomplish, or reconstruct the deficient cards
Who uses the output
- Continuing-airworthiness leads confirming task accomplishment before a transfer
- Asset managers pricing the task history the card set can actually prove
- Records teams closing the cards that came up short before diligence
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The task-card review verifies the accomplishment evidence that the maintenance program status rests on. It runs after a check closes or before a sale so a missing stamp or reference is found while the shop that produced the card can still explain it, and its exception list feeds the completion work ahead of a transfer.
Aircraft-specific considerations
An owner-managed PC-12 often has task cards produced by several shops over its history, each with its own card layout, so the sign-off and reference fields sit in different places from one set to the next. That variation is where required stamps and instruction references most often get missed, so the review reads each shop's card format on its own terms rather than assuming a single layout.
Regulatory limits
The review confirms the task cards are complete and traceable to their instructions and flags where they are not. It does not accomplish or re-accomplish any task, sign off maintenance, or make an airworthiness determination.
What this review does not cover
- Accomplishing or re-accomplishing any maintenance task
- Signing off or stamping any task card
- Any airworthiness determination on the aircraft
Specific to this review
- On a PC-12 with cards from several shops, the required inspection stamp is easy to miss because it sits in a different place on each shop's card layout.
- A card that references no source instruction cannot prove the standard the work met, which is a different defect from a missing signature.
- A two-stage task can read as closed on the mechanic signature alone while the inspector stamp that the task actually required is absent.
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 cards are all marked closed. What is left to check?
A closed mark shows the card was filed, not that it carries the sign-offs, stamps, and instruction reference the task required. The review reads each card for that evidence, which is what a buyer or auditor will test.
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.