Reconciliation method
Source-to-status reconciliation checklist
This checklist reconciles a maintenance-tracking status list against the source records behind it, sampling AD, LLP, component, and time entries to confirm each status line traces to a real document. Use it whenever a status list will drive a decision and has not been checked back to source. You finish with a reconciliation result by category, a list of unsupported status lines, and the source documents needed to support them.
When this review is needed
- A status list is about to drive a transaction, a return, or a planning decision.
- A tracking system has run for years without a check back to the source records.
- Two status lists for the same aircraft disagree and the source has to settle it.
- A migration to a new tracking system is planned and the data has to be verified before it moves.
The problem
A tracking status list is treated as the answer because it is the document everyone looks at. The position it states was entered by people over years, and the source records that justify each line sit elsewhere or not at all. The list cannot tell you which of its own numbers are supported. When two lists for the same tail disagree, the list itself cannot settle which one is right.
What gets reviewed
- AD status lines sampled against accomplishment records
- LLP status against disk sheets and release evidence
- Component times and next-due against the source logbook entries
- Total time and cycles for internal consistency across records
- The reconciliation sample size and how it was selected
- Disagreements recorded against the source value rather than the status value
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 sampled status line traces to a specific source document
- Times and cycles agree across the status list, the logbook, and the shop reports
- Next-due dates and intervals on the status list match the program source
- Any disagreement is recorded against the source value, not the status value
- The sample is sized and selected so the result is defensible
Evidence normally required
Common discrepancies
- A status line with no source document behind it once it is pulled
- Times that disagree between the status list and the logbook
- Next-due intervals on the status list that do not match the program
- Two status lists for the same tail that the source records do not support equally
- An interval entered into tracking that the program source does not back
What is at stake
A decision priced off an unsupported status line is priced wrong, and a tracking migration that carries the error forward locks it into the new system. Reconciling the list to source, on a defensible sample, separates the numbers that hold from the ones that need a document before anyone relies on them.
How the work runs
Define the sample
Select status lines across AD, LLP, component, and time categories and record the sample size and selection method.
Pull the source
For each sampled line, locate the accomplishment record, disk sheet, shop report, or logbook entry that should support it.
Record the result
Mark each line supported, unsupported, or inconsistent, recording disagreements against the source value.
Request the gaps
Build a source-document request list to support or correct each line before the status drives a decision.
What the buyer receives
- A reconciliation result by record category with the sample size
- A list of unsupported or inconsistent status lines
- A source-document request list to support or correct each line
Who uses the output
- Records teams correcting the tracking system against source
- Asset and transaction teams relying on the status list to price or plan
- Continuing-airworthiness management confirming the position before a decision
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The checklist is the reconciliation method behind the readiness check and the lease-return audit, and the unsupported lines it surfaces are logged into a register built to the discrepancy-register schema.
Regulatory limits
The checklist confirms that status lines trace to source on a sample. It does not make an airworthiness determination, certify the status list, or replace the source records as the record of record.
What this review does not cover
- Creating missing source records or back-filling them
- Physical inspection of the aircraft
- Any airworthiness determination on the status
Specific to this review
- A status list states the position; the source records support it, and the two are checked as separate things because they often disagree.
- Sampling is the practical approach, so the method records sample size and selection to make the result defensible.
- When two status lists for one tail disagree, only the source records settle it, so disagreements are recorded against the source value.
Sources
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.
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.
Frequently asked questions
Which value wins when the list and the source disagree?
The source record. The status list states a position; the source records support it. Disagreements are recorded against the source value, and the list is corrected to match what the documents can prove.
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.
Adapt the checklist to your asset, event, and jurisdiction.