Work-card completeness
Missing task cards in a maintenance work package
Missing task cards is the case where a check or work package is recorded as complete, but the individual cards that show each task was carried out and signed are absent from the delivered set. It concerns the receiving MRO, the airline accepting the work, and the lessor relying on the check at return. The review compares the work scope against the cards on hand, finds which are missing, and traces what each one should contain. You receive a card-gap list against the scope, the recovery route for each, and the items that must be reflown if no card can be produced.
When this review is needed
- A check is signed off but the card pack delivered does not cover the full work scope.
- An airline is accepting a work package and the card count does not reconcile to the planned tasks.
- A return references a completed check whose task cards cannot all be produced.
- An audit samples the package and finds tasks with no card behind the release.
The problem
The release and the check summary state the work is complete, so the package reads as closed at a glance. The cards are the evidence that each task in the scope was actually performed and signed, and when a subset is missing there is no proof the work behind the release was done. The gap is easy to miss because the headline paperwork looks finished while the underlying record of the work is not there.
What gets reviewed
- The planned work scope and task list driving the check or package
- The task cards delivered, reconciled card by card against that scope
- Sign-off, inspection, and stamp completeness on each card present
- Non-routine cards generated against routine tasks and whether each is present
- Cards covering tasks that produced a release or a component change
- The recovery route for each missing card from the performing organization
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 task in the scope maps to a delivered card
- Each card present carries the required mechanic and inspector sign-offs
- Non-routine cards raised against routine tasks are accounted for
- Cards tied to a component change or release are present and consistent with that paperwork
- Card revisions match the program revision the check was planned against
- No task in the release summary is left without a supporting card
Evidence normally required
- The planned work scope and task list for the check or package
- The delivered task and non-routine cards
- The check release and work-package summary
- Component change and release paperwork tied to package tasks
- The maintenance program revision the package was planned against
Common discrepancies
- Tasks in the scope with no card delivered in the package
- Cards present but missing the inspector stamp or a required sign-off
- A non-routine raised against a routine task with the routine card absent
- A card whose revision does not match the program revision of the check
- A component change referenced in the release with no card describing the work
What is at stake
A task with no card cannot be shown to have been performed, which can mean the work is reflown at the next opportunity or the release is questioned. For a lessor relying on the check at return, missing cards undercut the value of the maintenance event, and recovering them from the performing organization is far easier before that organization is released.
Move from findings to resolution
Sequence the fixes and the documentation that closes each finding.
How the work runs
Reconcile scope to cards
Map every task in the planned scope to a delivered card and flag the tasks with no card present.
Check the cards on hand
Confirm sign-offs, stamps, revisions, and links to component changes on each card that is present.
Trace the missing cards
Identify where each missing card should reside and request it from the performing organization.
Route the unrecoverable
List tasks with no producible card for reflight or re-evidencing and assign each to an owner.
What the buyer receives
- A card-gap list mapping each missing card to the task in the scope it covers
- A recovery route for each gap, naming the performing organization and the document to retrieve
- A list of tasks that must be reflown or re-evidenced if no card can be produced
Who uses the output
- Quality assurance accepting or rejecting the work package
- Records teams recovering cards before the performing organization is released
- Continuing-airworthiness staff deciding which tasks must be reflown
How the work fits into the transaction or program
This is the front half of a work-package closeout, focused on whether the cards that prove the work exist. It runs before handback acceptance so gaps can be recovered while the performing organization still holds the source, and it feeds the closeout review and the discrepancy register.
Aircraft-specific considerations
Card structure follows the maintenance program for the type, so the scope is reconciled against the program tasks and intervals for the specific aircraft. A heavy check on a long-in-service airframe generates far more cards and non-routines than a light check, which changes how a gap is searched and prioritized.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
The card and release framework differs between the FAA and EASA systems, so what counts as a complete card pack and an acceptable sign-off is read against the system the work was performed under. Where the asset will operate under a different authority, the package is assessed against what that authority expects to see for the check.
Regulatory limits
The review identifies which task cards are missing and what is needed to recover or re-evidence each one. It does not re-perform maintenance, approve the work package, issue a release, or make an airworthiness determination.
What this review does not cover
- Re-performing the maintenance tasks themselves
- Issuing or re-issuing a release for the package
- Any airworthiness determination or regulatory approval
Specific to this review
- The release and check summary can read as complete while the cards that prove the underlying work are absent, which is why the scope is reconciled card by card.
- A task with no card cannot be shown to have been done, so an unrecoverable card usually means the task is reflown rather than excused.
- Non-routine cards raised against routine tasks are a frequent gap, because the routine card they branched from is sometimes never filed.
- Card recovery is far easier before the performing organization is released, so the review is timed ahead of handback acceptance.
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.
U.S. Government (eCFR). Air carrier maintenance recordkeeping and retention requirements under Part 121.
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.
European Union / EASA. Continuing airworthiness, maintenance records, CAMO responsibilities, and the airworthiness review process in the EASA system.
Frequently asked questions
Is a signed check release enough on its own?
The release states the work is complete, but the task cards are the evidence each task was performed and signed. Without them, a sampled task cannot be shown to have been done, so the package is reconciled card by card rather than accepted on the release alone.
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.
Walk through your situation with an engineer who has done this work.